


J??< 






J» 



£ 


C «* 




- c ^ 


J 


^ 


< 


c «£ 


( 


cc «£ 




r CC <X 


=- 


§ # 


,- 




^ ^ 


~CCL 


^ 


i<X 


<C 


iV 


I 43>- 


Yc 


c *£ 


\c 


C &■ 


c< 


^ 


c 


43d 


[<J 


<T 


<< 


\ <x 


C 


<T 


£ 


<SL- 



rT^/ws^^^-- 



■%><%, ^v<ss> •% ^. ^>^>^ GJ 



I LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.* 

v * 



JM & # 'MX 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



|j3'%.<%.'?§>«s/^.'^.'*sS'^' i «''^'"%> ^ «&>**> N%.'%--ife/'^' < fe'3J 



C<2 c 



J^ ^l *~^ 

P- JET <3K 















#" 




4SL- 


^fe ^ 


St 




^£- 


g<^ < 




«i& 1 


«g3cl 


<tc < 


- «SI 


Sac « 




fiSC- 


- . w ' 






r*> a< „ 


^4* 


M 










K^ ■ <?c_ 



m * 



THE 



SCHOOL FUND PERVERTED j 



3, Hcoicw of a SDteatssicm 



OCCASIONED BY THE PROPAGATION 



SECTARIANISM IN COMMON SCHOOLS. 



<W 



HARTFORD : 

H. S. PARSONS & CO. 

1848. 



HANMER, JH.— CALENDAR OFFICE PBESS, 



/ 
THE 



SCHOOL FUND PERVERTED 



31 ftetriero of a JDteawsion 



OCCASIONED BY THE PROPAGATION 



ova /,v 



SECTARIANISM IN COMMON, SCHOOLS 



HARTFORD: 

H, S. PARSONS & CO. 
1S48. 



i. 






Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1848, by 

H. S. PARSONS &CO., 
in the Clerk's office, of the District Court of Connecticut. 



S. HANMER, JR.— CALENDAR OFFICE PRESS. 



ADVERTISEMENT 



At the earnest solicitation of a large number of persons, I have 
consented to . review an oral discussion which was held some 
months since in the place of my residence, upon the subject of 
Sectarianism in the Common Schools of Connecticut ; and which 
exposed a course of management whereby the School Fund is 
perverted from its legitimate ends. 

The considerations that have induced me to yield to the request 
are, a conviction that the interests of truth and right require a 
correct statement of the positions assumed in this debate to be 
put in a form for preservation and reference by persons in my own 
town ; and the belief that a history of the discussion and an out- 
line of its arguments may not be uninteresting or unprofitable in 
other places. 

The matter would have been given to the press at an earlier 
day, had not the hope been indulged that the Address of Dr. Bush- 
nell which was caused by this discussion, and which, after being 
long heralded, was delivered the past winter at the same place 
where the debate occurred, might be published so as to admit of 
its being dealt with in connection with this Review. 

w. w. 



Rectory of St. Peter's, Plymouth. 
May 10th, 1848. 



OBJECT OF THE PUBLICATION. 



The design of this publication is, to show how a public provision 
for the general good may be perverted by being used in such man- 
ner as to promote the interests of a party — to make it appear that 
the School Fund, which the Constitution of the State declares 
shall be used "for the equal benefit of all,*" is in fact so employ- 
ed, almost every where, as to make it favor one denomination of 
Christians at the expense of the interests and in violation of the 
consciences of others — to give a specimen of the far-fetched argu- 
ments and circuitous method of reasoning by which this course is 
attempted to be justified, as well as of a way in which the soph- 
istries that are used to defend it may be met — and to awaken 
Churchmen, and others who have a common interest with them 
in this thing, to a sense of the greatness of the injustice, and to 
the necessity of taking decided measures for putting a stop to the 
iniquity of applying a public fund to the advancement of sectarian 
ends. It has been thought that the evil complained of can be 
exposed in no better way than by giving a history and outline of 
a discussion of which it is necessary to say no more here than 
that, in consequence of the erratic course of my opponent, it 
occupied more than twenty evenings. 



*Art. 8. Sec. 2 



DEBATE ON 
THE PERVERSION OF THE SCHOOL FUND. 

QUESTION IN DEBATE. 

The point at issue in the discussion, of which an account is now 
to be given, was, in substance, Is it not a perversion of the 
School Fund to expend its proceeds in teaching in our Common 
Schools statements with regard to the separation of the Puritans 
from the Church of England, which a respectable proportion 
of those who support and patronize these Schools feel to be both 
injurious to their ecclesiastical interests, and oppressive to their 
consciences ; and which they also hold themselves able to prove 
false ? 

ORIGIN OF THE DISCUSSION. 

In order to a proper understanding of what follows, it is need- 
ful first to state how the discussion happened to take place, and 
how it came to assume the form it did. 

The facts in the case are these. On occasion of the first meeting 
of our Board of School Visitors for the season, it was proposed, 
with a view to enable the Board to act more intelligently in its 
recommendation of Books to be used in the Schools, that there 



8 

should be a thorough examination of all the Books which in by- 
gone years have been required or allowed. To facilitate this 
work the Board was divided into Committees of two members 
each, and Books on one branch or more were assigned to the 
several Committees. In this division of labor the department of 
History fell to the present writer and another gentleman. At the 
expiration of two weeks, when the Board came together to hear 
the respective Reports, the Committee on History recommended 
the works of Goodrich and Olney, with the exception of certain 
passages* which they proposed to exclude because of their secta- 
rian character, and because of their tendency to mislead the learn- 
er in regard to the facts of History. The Report of the Committee 
was unanimously approved — one of the Congregational Ministers 
of the town bringing forward a resolution for the adoption of the 
same, in which was inserted a saving clause to the effect that the 
exclusion of these passages should not be regarded as pronouncing 
them to be utterly false, but only as recognizing the fact that 
there is among us a diversity of opinion in regard to their 



*" They (the Pilgrims) xoere driven thence (from England) by the arm 
of 'persecution." — History of the United States by Charles A. Good- 
rich, 1834, 37th page. 

" Among tliG motives which influenced them (the Pilgrims) to remove 
to America, the prospect of enjoying a purer worship . . . was the 
principal." — Id. 

'•To avoid the indignation of the persecuting Archbishop Laud, in 1633 
he (Davenport) fled to Holland" — Id. 56ih p. 

; 'To escape from persecution they (the Pilgrims) left the land of their 
fathers." — History of the United States by J. Olney, 1836, 55th p. 

The above are but a few of many specimens which might be given of the 
one-sided and slanderous statements of these Authors. Goodrich's Histo- 
r} r with Emerson's Questions abounds wiih still more objectionable pas- 
sages — passages which, by fostering unjust prejudices against Episcopacy, 
tend to injure the Church. 



truthfulness. In order to prevent all misapprehension, the act- 
ing Visitor of the Board was instructed to make known to the 
teachers, and, through them, to the children and their parents, the 
grounds on which these omitted passages had been set aside. 

The matter having been thus equitably and satisfactorily 
arranged, there was reason to believe that our action would be 
left to stand undistui'bed as it had been settled by the unanimous 
consent of a majority of the members of the Board, especially 
since the resolution on which that action was based had come 
from such a quarter. Judge then of my surprise on receiving a 
letter, signed by two members not present at the primary meet- 
ings, complaining of what the Board had done, and notifying me 
that they had determined on calling another meeting which would 
be public, to be held in the basement of the Congregational meet- 
ing-house. My first impulse was to have nothing to do with this 
unauthorized meeting which was to be called by two persons who 
had no right whatever to convene the Board. I could not bring 
myself to sanction these unlicensed proceedings by my presence 
until I saw that, as the Congregationalists had denominationally 
the power to control the Board, the absence of the minority 
would give the majority an opportunity not only to declare their 
irregular doings legal, and then rescind our previous action, but 
also to enable them to say, that the Churchmen on the Board were 
afraid to meet them before the face of the public. But this deter- 
mined me. Satisfied, as I was, that our first action was equitable 
and fair, I was resolved to defend it, believing that, though we 
might be beaten by a denominational vote, we might yet succeed 
in obliging our opponents to give that vote under such circum- 
stances, as should make it seen and felt by the community to be an 
oblation laid by Puritanic devotion upon the shrine of Congrega- 
tionalism, at the expense of truth and justice. We met. Theminor- 
2 



10 

ity, aided by right, compelled the majority to abstain from all pro- 
ceedings under the unauthorized call of the two individuals who 
had convened the meeting; and, by defending the legality of the 
past doings of the Board, obliged our opponents, when we next 
came together regularly called, to take the position of assailants, 
and bring forward a resolution, as they now did, proposing to 
rescind the action which the Board had taken in reference to the 
Histories used in our Common Schools. 

The aggression being thus made, and the work of oppression 
ready to be consummated by the passage of the resolution, I arose 
to the defense of the action of the Board. 

The course I took was, not to attempt to prove that the state- 
ments of Puritan writers, on the point of alledged persecution of 
the Pilgrims, are wholly false, but only that they are of such ques- 
tionable truthfulness that they are not without reason disbelieved 
by some. This was all that in my first effort I tried to make ap- 
peal - . Nothing beyond this was then to my purpose — my object 
being to show that our proceedings, in striking out certain passa- 
ges from our School Histories which give a one-sided view of this 
matter, had not been groundless, but for good and sufficient cause. 
I, and the gentlemen who agreed with me, were disposed still to 
abide by the conciliatory action which we had taken — not asking 
to have our own views taught, or even to have their opposite pro- 
nounced false, but only to have silence observed upon a sub- 
ject on which there could not be agreement. And when it was 
shown, as it was at large, from as respectable authors* as Hume 



*To give here only a sample of these authorities. Hume, speaking of 
the Puritans of the reign of James I., during which the Pilgrims embarked 
for Plymouth, says, »• They maintained that they themselves were the 
only true Church; that their principles and praciices ought lobe established 
by law; and that no others ought to be tolerated. It may be questioned 
therefore, whether the administration at this time could with propriety de- 



11 

and Hutchinson — the latter himself a Puritan — that there is an- 
other side to the question than that presented by Goodrich and 
Olnev, it seemed to be proved with sufficient clearness that there 
was abundant reason both for our asking those who follow the 
teaching of these last-named writers to meet us on this middle 
ground, and to keep the action of the Board where we had fixed it. 
On the other hand, the gentleman who offered himself or who 
was put forward as the advocate on the Congregational side, a 
Minister of that denomination, gave us to understand, at the outset 
of his remarks in reply, that he would have nothing to do with 
compromise — either we must prove no persecution so clearly as 
to force a majority of the Bo'ard, whose minds were made up to 
the contrary and who did not mean to hold themselves open to 
conviction, to receive our view as truth ; or, we must submit to 
have theirs inculcated on our children. In support of the state- 
ments made by Goodrich and Olney the position was assumed 
and defended, that the whole Puritan difficulty grew out of the 
imperfect reformation of the Church of England. Both her doc- 
trine and discipline were faulted, and directly as well as indirectly 
thrusts were made, in passing, at her daughter the Church in 
the United States; these latter attacks being accompanied by in- 
consistent declarations of wishing to be regarded as not having 
anything to say against the latter Communion — a Communion, as 
every one knows, so identical in doctrine with that of the English 
Church, that it is impossible to inflict wrong upon the one without 
injuring the other. 

serve the appellation of persecutors with regard to ihe Puritans." — History 
of England, Phil, "1837, vol. ii, p. 195. And Hutchinson, after giving 
an account of an affray between the people of Lords Say and Brook and 
the Plymouth men, in which some were killed, remarks that "the enemiey 
of both reproached both for making religion ihe professed motive for colo- 
nizing, and so soon after killing one another/or the sake of beaver." — His- 
tory of Massachusetts. London, 1768, vol. ii, p. 475. 



12 

By this assault upon the Church, a theological and thoroughly 
denominational aspect was given to the discussion — an aspect 
which it was no design of mine to make it assume. But as the 
debate had at first been forced upon us in the way stated, so were 
we now compelled to enter into a religious controversy, unless, 
forsooth, we could make up our minds to stand still and see the 
Church abused without lifting our voice in its defense. 

Greatly was the discussion prolonged by the almost innumera- 
ble mistakes and misrepresentations which my opponent made in 
the course of his two arguments — mistakes and misrepresenta- 
ions which it cost me the labor of several evenings to expose and 
rectify. The work thus imposed upon me I did not regret, as it 
gave me the best opportunity I have ever had for vindicating the 
Church from the many calumnies which have been uttered against 
her, and for explaining and enforcing her Divine doctrines and 
Apostolic practice. The only thing at all to be lamented was, 
that a considerable number who listened to the slanders of my 
opponent had not the magnanimity or fairness to give a hearing to 
their refutation. It is truly mournful to see men thus afraid of 
the light ; and still more mournful to see them encouraged to turn 
away from it by a teacher of religion. Does not such a course 
intimate the existence of more than a suspicion that the cause 
attempted to be upheld by such means is a weak one, and will not 
bear examination 1 I forbear commenting further on this conduct ; 
neither will I dwell upon the rude behaviour of a portion of the 
favorers of the opposition, the unfair repetition of once refuted 
arguments, and the peculiarstyle of their favorite speaker — more 
becoming the lowest political demagogue than a preacher of the 
blessed Gospel. Such things are worthy of notice only as they 
serve to show the lawless and unlovely spirit which Puritanism 
begets and fosters. 

I hope it will never be attempted to be shown that I was at 



13 

all a match for my opponent in the use of uncivil terms. I dared 
not attempt to vie with him in this respect. In two things we 
acknowledge ourselves fairly beaten, that is, in the use of uncour- 
teous personalities and in the vote. In regard to the former, I 
have only to add that my competitor is welcome to the palm borne 
off so ingloriously ; with respect to the latter, I have but to say, 
that, had I been instrumental in imposing upon my townsmen as 
unjust a thing as is put upon us, Churchmen, by rescinding the 
previous action of the Board and passing this last resolution, I 
should regard myself as deserving the condemnation of all fair 
and liberal-minded men. Whether we were worsted in aught 
else than in the particulars mentioned above — whether we were 
not victorious in all besides — will appear more clearly as we come 
to review separately the points discussed. 

In regard to the manner and spirit in which this discussion was 
conducted little more remains to be said. There is nothing on 
the Church side to be regretted unless it be, that its chief advo- 
cate should, even in the least degree, have allowed himself to be 
betrayed into an imitation of that unministerial strain in which 
his opponent so largely indulged. He thinks he may without 
fear of contradiction claim for his side the exhibition of a spirit 
of candor and fairness, which will be looked for in vain in the oppo- 
sition. If we found ourselves obliged to condemn a system, we 
were always ready to grant to the individuals connected with 
it all that the largest charity could claim. I will not stop here to 
speak, as perhaps I should, of my opponent's abusive treatment 
of the Christian Fathers, nor of his impious conduct in claiming it 
to be his right to jest as much as he pleased about the emblem of 
the Cross whereon his Saviour died, nor, of the Protestant Jesuit- 
ism shown in throwing a mist around the truth that was feared, 
and in bringing forward writers of the Church who are known 
to be no fair exponents of her principles, instead of producing her 



14 

formulas of faith, or standard authors. But I must say there was 
exhibited as little Christian honesty, and even less regard for the 
character of the means used, than I ever met with in any discus- 
sion with which I have been acquainted. The object seemed to 
be, not so much to prove Congregationalism to be worthy of sup- 
port, as to tear down the Church — not to arrive at the truth, but 
to make a show of gaining the victory at all hazards, fairly if it 
might be so, otherwise if it must. 

The argument, if such it can be called, of the other Congregation- 
al Minister who appeared against me at the close of the debate, 
when I had no opportunity to reply, I shall not trouble myself to 
review — first, because he appeared but as the shadow or echo 
of my chief opponent, uttering nothing of moment which had not 
been said before ; and, secondly, because his remarks were so fil- 
led with bitterness and personal invective that they could have 
been productive of no effect, other than that of exciting a feeling 
of pity. There was but one thing I wished at the time to rejoin, 
which was, that if, in the description which he had so laboriously 
drawn of the meeting at which our first action on this subject was 
taken, he had but represented himself as the mover of the resolu- 
tion by which the passages were excluded, and then, by another 
touch of his pencil, had given us a view of himself getting over the 
fence in order to be on the popular side, the picture would, in my 
opinion, have been greatly improved. 

Dedit hanc conlagio labem, 
. . . - sicut grex totus in agris 
Unius scabie caditet porrigine porci, 
Uvaque conspeeta livorem ducit ab uva. 

But let that pass. My wish is not to glory over an" individual 5 
the triumph of the truth is what I seek — an object so superior to 
all personal considerations, that they should be cheerfully sacrifi- 
ced to its interests. Let us then see where the truth was found to 
lie on the points in debate, only remarking, in passing from this 



15 

introductory part of the Review, that nothing pleased me more in 
the whole course of the discussion, than the generally correct de- 
portment of Churchmen — especially the disposition manifested by 
them to listen patiently to both sides. It seemed indicative of 
the confidence which they felt, if not in their champion, yet in the 
strength of their own positions. 

Let us now turn to a consideration of the several particular 
points in the discussion. 

POINTS DISCUSSED. 

Before proceeding to a review of the chief points of debate, I 
shall briefly notice a few particulars which do not admit of classifi- 
cation under those heads. 

I. In various parts of the discussion a desperate attempt was 
made to show that the branch of the Church to which the writer 
belongs has a leaning towards Rome. The reasons given for 
this supposition were, that we allow that Communion to be a 
Church — that we acknowledge the validity of her Ordinations — 
that our Clergy wear Vestments — and that we believe in the Real 
Presence in the Eucharist. 

In reply it was shown that we hold the Church of Rome to be 
heretical and corrupt* — that the only sense in which we admit her 
to be truly a Church is the same as that in which we admit a vicious 
man, who is ever so poorly answering the ends for which his God 
made him, to be truly a man — that in admitting the validity of 
her Ordinations, we do no more than old Dr. Lathrop,f a patri- 
arch of Congregationalism, has done, and no more than is war- 
ranted by the fact that in that Church there has been from the 
Apostles' time an uninterrupted line of ordainers,J and that the 

*Art. xix. fWarnirjg to (he Churches, p. 110, 111. Jld. 



1G 

Vestments, particularly the Surplice, which is the one specially ob- 
jected to, was in use in the Church of Christ before Popery had 
an existence.* The answer made to the charge of our favoring 
Rome because we hold the doctrine of the Real Presence in the 
Lord's Supper, I shall give when I come to review our discus- 
sion on the sacramental question, where it will be shown that the 
Real Presence, instead of being a dogma of the Papacy, is un- 
doubtedly a doctrine of the Reformation and of all the Protes- 
tant standards. 

II. Another effort very earnestly made, with as little success, 
was to make it appear that the Church of England, and her daugh- 
ter in the United States have departed from the principles of the 
Reformation in not holding Calvinism. This lame attempt seem- 
ed to be prompted by a desire to get up something which might 
be regarded as an offset to the fact, admitted as well as proved, that 
Congregationalists have utterly abandoned the ground of the Re- 
formation. My opponent, to make out any thing of a plea on 
this point, was obliged unwarrantably to assume, in the first place, 
that the doctrines of the Reformation wei'e Calvinistic, and then 
that the 39 Articles, especially the 17th, are so likewise. 

In refutation of this, it was shown that the Reformation itself 
was not Calvinistic, and also that the 39 Articles of our Church 
were framed before Calvin published any formal statement of his 
viewst — that their general tenor setting forth, as they do, Universal 
Redemption and the possibility of a Fall from Grace, are adverse 
to the Genevan scheme, while there is nothing in the 17th but 
what agrees as well or better with the opposite theory — and that 
the uncalvinistic character of the 39 Articles is made abundantly 
manifest by the fact, that it was nothing but their want of the Gen- 

*Eusebius x, 4. IfFaber on Election, p. 284 ct passim. 



17 

evan stamp which led the Calvinistic party in the Church of Eng- 
land to propose, in the reign of Elizabeth, the famous Lambeth 
Articles. Why, it was triumphantly asked, why, if the 39 Arti- 
cles are Calvinistic, were not the men who favored that view satis- 
fied % Why did they desire and frame what is entirely differ- 
ent ? 

III. One more of these isolated points I will here briefly 
notice. Throughout the whole discussion there was a studied 
effort to show, that there is a wide diversity of opinion in the 
Church itself on the points in debate in this discussion. The 
changes were rung, very frequently, on the words High and Low 
Church ; and the desire was manifested to make it appear, that 
the present writer is at disagreement, not with the Church itself 
indeed, but with some of his own Communion — the object of this 
being to divert attention from the weak points of Congregational- 
ism. 

In answer it was shown, that this quotation of individual writers, 
who are extreme in their views, proves nothing — that it can be of 
no avail to cite Newman on the one hand or Whately on the other 
— that when there are such numbers coming into the Church 
from different denominations, and many of them remaining as 
yet imperfectly instructed in her system, it is to be expected that, 
from her pulpits even, will, now and then, be heard a voice speak- 
ing in tones but half Church-like — that after all the hue and cry 
which has been raised about High and Low Church, the only 
difference between those who may be ranked under these heads is, 
that the former hold firmly and practice consistently what the 
standards of their Church teach, while the latter, from want of prop- 
er acquaintance with her principles or from constitutional irresolu- 
tion, are wavering and inconsistent in both these particulars — that 
this is a state of things which will be found to exist in all bodies of 



Ml 

men, whatever their views and to whatever those views may 
relate — that there are High Democrats and Low Democrats, 
High Whigs and Low Whigs, High Congregationalists and Low 
Congregationalists, as well as High Churchmen and Low 
Churchmen. 

Without spending more time on these questions of lesser mo- 
ment, and hoping to be able to bring all that is worth noticing 
under some of the principal heads, I pass without further delay 
to the consideration of the main points of the discussion. 

THE PURITAN SEPARATION UNJUSTIFIABLE. 

The position was assumed by my opponent, that the Puritan 
separation was caused by the imperfect reformation of the Church 
of England, and that it is therefore defensible. In support of this 
position it was urged, that the ambition of Elizabeth induced her 
to retard the progress of the Reformation, and even to force it back 
of the point which it had reached in Edward's reign — that her 
wish was to keep the whole body of the nation in the Church of 
England — that, to accomplish this end, she determined to have the 
work of reform carried no further than might consist with her 
design of retaining her Romish subjects within the pale of the 
established Church of the realm — that this was the principle on 
which the reformation under this Queen was conducted — that 
hence resulted a half-reformed, semi-popish sort of religion, both 
in doctrine and practice — that evidence of this may be seen in the 
ienets of Baptismal Regeneration, a'i< the Real Presence, and in 
the ceremonies which have been retained, such as the use of Cler- 
ical Garments, of the Cross in Baptism, of the ring in marriage, 
and the practice of kneeling to receive the Lord's upper — that 
it was the opposition provoked by these things which produced 
what is called tie Puritan movement — thai godly Ministers could 



.19 

not, with a good conscience, submit to the requirements of the 
established Church — that the Queen, on the other hand, was bent 
on having uniformity — and that the severe acts which she caused 
to be passed, simply for the punishment of this conscientious and 
quiet nonconformity, led to the emigration of the Pilgrims to 
Holland, and ultimately to this country. 

Such was the course of argumentation by which it was attempt- 
ed to be shown that the Church of England was imperfectly 
reformed, and that the whole Puritan movement was owing to 
that alledged defect. A large number of sectarian authors was 
brought foi-ward, who manifest a readiness to condemn Elizabeth 
for not going in everything to an equal length with the Continen- 
tal Reformers — who exclaim with holy horror at the [enjoinment 
of such things as Book and Surplice — and who claim that the suf- 
ferings which the Puritans endured were persecution ; in all 
which, that prince of Puritan writers, Daniel Neal, is faithfully 
followed by these his copyists, an author whom such men of his 
own side as Maclaine*, and Murdockf, and Hetherington| de- 
clare not trustworthy. 

In reply it was shown, that the charge, brought against Eliza- 
beth of being disposed to stay the work of Reformation short of 
its true point and to favor Romanism, is an unwarranted assump- 
tion, made for no other purpose but to furnish an excuse for the Pu- 
ritan schism — that, had she been disposed to be a Papist, she could 
as easily have been so as her predecessor, Mary — that her de- 
claring herself a Protestant, when so many of the neighboring Sov- 
reigns were Romanists, and her adherence to the Reformed faith, 
spite of the Pope's excommunication and declaration of illegiti- 
macy, spite of the alarming pretensions of her powerful rival the 



translation of Mosheim, vol. iv. p. 379. f Do. vol. iii. p. 201. 

iHistory of Westminster Assembly, New York, 1843, p. 231 and 245. 



Queen of the Scots, spite of the secret plots against her life* by 
her own Romish subjects, spite of the wrath of the rejected Philip 
and the terrors of the Spanish Armada, and spite, too, of all the 
kindness used by the Pontiff when threats failed, to win her back 
to the bosom of the Papal Churchf, makes it too plain to be ques- 
tioned, with any reason, that the Virgin Queen was, what she de- 
clared herself to be, a Protestant at heart and from principle. 
To prove this point farther, allusion was also made to the severe 
acts which under Elizabeth were framed against the Papists. If 
she was disposed to favor Romanists or Romanism, why, it was 
asked, did she drive Priests of that religion from her Kingdom!? 
Why, by her consent, was it made treason to reconcile an English 
subject to the Church of Rome§ 1 The Protestantism of that no- 
ble woman, justly styled England's lioness, is, by facts like these, 
put above just suspicion ; and, consequently, the whole argument 
built on her alledged disposition to favor Popery, by which it has 
been attempted to excuse the schism of the Puritans, falls to the 
ground. That Elizabeth wished to retain the whole body of her 
subjects in the Church of England was admitted ; and her desire 
in that respect was applauded as one worthy of a Christian Prin- 
cess. That she was cautious, and that she may seem to the ar- 
dent-minded to have been unnecessarily slow inputting all things 
into a right shape, was also admitted ; and her policy in this, un- 
der the difficulties of her position, was defended as wise and godly. 
That she was opposed to carrying things to extremes on the Prot- 
estant side was not denied ; but that she rolled back the tide of 
Reformation was proved, by reference to history, to be a bare- 



*Hume, vol. ii. p. 45 and 48. fHeylyn, p. 310 

tKennets History of England, vol. ii. p. 497. §Echard's do. vol. i. p. 838. 



21 

faced slander. From various sources* it was shown that she 
adopted the last hook of Edward in full, only erasing from the 
Litany a petition unnecessarily severe against the Romanists, and 
restoring the Communion Office to the character which it had in 
her brother's time, before the foreign influence of Martyr and 
Bucer marred the English standards ; and that no other alteration 
was made, except to enjoin the Clerical Habits which had been 
laid aside through the same influence — to make some changes in 
respect to the place in the Church where the services are to be per- 
formed — and to add some Lessons, and a few petitions for the 
Queen and Clergy. 

By the presentation of such facts was the argument annihila- 
ted which was based on the alledged inclination of Elizabeth to 
favor Romanism. Her object, like that of Edward and the mar- 
tyred ones who acted with him, was simply and purely to restore 
the Church to the primitive model. 

Thus signally did my opponent fail to make any thing for his 
cause from the historical argument. And no better did he succeed 
with his charge against the doctrines of the Church — the principal 
of those faulted being, Baptismal Regeneration and the Real 
Presence in the Eucharist. It was shown on our side that 
these doctrines, as held by the Church of England and by her 
daughter in these United States, instead of being semi-Romish, 
were those of the Reformers generally; and that all who hold not 
with us on these points have deserted the common ground of the 
Reformation. And here it was suggested whether my opponent's 
impression, that the Church is in a wrong position in respect to 
these particulars of doctrine, might not be attributable to his being 
in a false position himself — whether he might not be like one who, 



♦Keeling' s Liturgies Britannicae, Wheatly on the Common Prayer, 
p. 24—31, or Bishop Brownell's Commentary, Introduction, 



22 

viewing a ship passing a strait, fancies that she is certainly about 
to run upon the opposite shore, while, in truth, she is holding on 
her way safely in mid-channel — whether one not in the Ark of 
Christ's Church is competent to judge of her true position — 
whether he is not liable, from the disadvantage of a bad stand- 
point, to have it seem that the Church is in danger, when, in fact, 
she is just as far from the Scylla of Romanism as from his own 
Charybdis of Dissent — whether one subject to this deception is not 
in the predicament of such as know not what is hazardous and 
what is safe, what is wrong and what is right. 

In order to prove to my opponent that he and those who follow 
with him are in the wrong, and the Church in the right on the 
points of Baptismal Regeneration and the Real Presence, it was 
proposed to test these doctrines, as set forth in the Prayer 
Book, by comparing them with the individual writings of the 
Reformers, and with the standards of the Reformation. Before 
entering on this work it was premised that we should not first 
explain away the force of the terms used on these subjects in the 
Catechism, and Articles, and Offices of Baptism and of the Holy 
Communion, and, then attempt to make it appear that the Prayer 
Book, as thus accommodated to sectarian views, will bear the test to 
which it was proposed to subject it, but that it will endure the trial 
when its language is taken just as it reads, and according to its 
grammatical and natural construction. Understanding it, then, to 
mean precisely what it affirms when it says that in Baptism the in- 
fant is " made a member of Christ," and that in the Lord's Supper 
"the faithful recieve the Body and Blood of Christ," I pledged 
myself to prove that the language of the Prayer Book which re- 
lates to the Sacraments, thus interpreted, agrees with the views 
held on these points by all the Reformers and all the Reformed 
bodies, Zwingle and his few followers, perhaps, excepted. 



THE CHURCH S DOCTRINE OF BAPTISM NO EXCUSE FOR THE 
PURITAN SCHISM. 

With a view to make the comparison on this point fair and full, 
we first brought forward from the Prayer-Book all the pas- 
sages which have any important bearing on the point of Baptis- 
mal Regeneration ; and then, after copious readings from the in- 
dividual writings of Luther,* Calvin,! Cranmer,| Latimer,§ and 
Ridley,] | large extracts were made from various early standards 
of the Reformation, as the Confession of Augsburg, Wirtemburg, 
Saxony, Helvetia, the Gallic, and the Old Scotch.^] 

From these writings and standards it was made to appear, that 
Baptismal Regeneration, in the strictest sense of the words, taken 
as denoting an ingrafting into Christ, and a participation of His 
life, was held by the Reformers generally — it being declared by 
several of them in language much stronger than any which can 
be quoted from the Prayer-Book. More than this, it was shown 
that the Confession of Faith** of the Presbyterians in this countrv 
sets forth the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration in as full and 
plain terms, as it is any where taught in the Prayer-Book. Fur- 
ther still, it was urged that the Confession, usually called the Say- 
brook Platform, which the fathers of the present Congregation- 
alists were not afraid to acknowledge as their belief, inculcates 
this doctrine in words too unequivocal to be misunderstood — that 
the first and sixth sections of the Chapter on Baptism in that Con- 

*Ou Galatians, p. 322,323 f Institutes, pages 558—70. 

{Remains, vol. iii. p. 65. § Sermons, 1824, vol. 2. p. 347. 
|| Wordsworth's Life of Latimer, vol. iii. p. 238. 
^[Harmony of Protestant Confessions, London, 1842. 
**Obap. 28. Sec. 1, 6. 



24 

fession, cannot be compared without its being seen, that Baptism 
is there held to be the means or instrument of regeneration — 
and that this standard thus bears witness to the true doctrine, not- 
withstanding its being forced, by the dogma of individual election 
which it sets forth, to admit that the effect of Baptism may not, 
even in the case of infants, always accompany the administration 
of the rite. 

Having thus proved that Baptismal Regeneration is a doctrine 
of the Reformation — that it is contained in both Presbyterian and 
Congregational standards — that it is held by all, except those 
who have deserted the views to which Luther and Calvin and 
Cranmer subscribed — and that therefore no justification is here- 
in found for the Puritan schism, we proceeded to enquire 
whether any apology for the same movement can be discovered 
in the doctrine held by the Church on the subject of the Eucha- 
rist. 

THE CHURClf S DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPrEIl NO EXCISE FOB 
THE SCHISM. 

The Church was found to be fully in harmony with the Reform- 
ers on this point, not only with the individual writings of these 
illustrious men, of Luther, Calvin, and Cranmer in particular, but 
also with all the standards of those times — as the Helvetic, the 
Gallic, the old Scotch, the Belgic, and the Heidelberg Catechism. 
One and all of these were shown to concur in testifying, that the 
Lord's Supper is more than a remembrancer — that it is more 
than a striking and affecting representation of the broken body 
and shed blood of the Crucified — that, to the contrite and believ- 
ing, the bread and wine are efficacious signs, signs which convey 
to the soul the very reality which they represent to the eye — 
and that thus, they are not only sensible symbols of Christ's cru- 



25 

cified body and shed blood, but also, means whereby we receive 
the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof. It was made to 
appear that each and every one of these standards, and the indi- 
vidual works of their compilers, do not hesitate to speak on this 
subject in bolder phrase than is any where used in the Prayer- 
Book. In the strongest terms which it is possible to select from 
the English language do the Reformers we have named, as well as 
their cotemporaries, assert, as was shown from their individual 
writings,* and from the Confessions of Faith which they framed, the 
Real Presence of Christ in both the Sacraments, and the Real 
Participation of Him on the part of the faithful recipient. 



*Baptismal Regeneration. — "The old man must be put off with all 
his works, that of the children of Adam we may become the children of 
God. This is not done by the changing of a garment, or by any laws or 
works, but by a new birth, and by the renewing of the inward man, which 
is done in Baptism, as St. Paul saith ' All ye that are baptised have put 
on Christ.' •..,.. This is diligently to be noted, because of 
the fond and fantastical spirits who go about to deface the majesty of 
Baptism." — Luther on Galatians, p. 322, 323. 

" The second birth is by the water of Baptism, which Paul calleth the 
bath of Regeneration, heeause our sins be forgiven us in Baptism, and the 
Holy Ghost is poured into us as into God's beloved children, so that 
by the power and working of the Holy Ghost we be born again spiritually, 
and made new creatures. And so by Baptism we enter into the kingdom 
of God, and are saved forever, if we continue to our lives' end in the faith 
of Christ." — Cranmer on Baptism, ( Tracts of the Anglican Fathers,) p. 1 

"It (Baptism) certainly testifieth unto us, that we are not only grafted 
into the death and life of Christ, but that we are so united to Christ him- 
self that we are partakers of all his good things." — Calvin's Institutes, B. 
iv. c. 15. § 6. 

Real Presence in the Eucharist. — " Christ saith of the bread 
'This is my body;' and of the cup he saith, ' This is my blood.' Where- 
fore we ought to believe that in the Sacrament we receive truly the body 

and blood of Christ This we must believe, if we will be 

counted Christian men." — Cranmer, Anglican Fathers, p. 38. 

The martyr Ridley, ....." I, being fully by God's word 
4 



06 

It was also demonstrated by the most ample and satisfactory 
quotations that the Presbyterian Confession of Faith*, and even 
the Saybrook Platform teach the same doctrine in far more ex- 
plicit language than the Prayer-Book does — the latter never 
using the term, Real Presence, while the Platform asserts in so 
many words, in the 7th Sec. of the Chapter on the Lord's Supper, 
that the body and blood of Christ are as really present as the 
elements themselves are. Thus clearly and fully was the conclusion 
again made out that, themselves and their formularies being wit- 
nesses, the Puritans cannot plead in defence of their separation 
from the Church, any deviation on her part from the principles 
of the Reformation. 

MODERN CONGREGATIONALISTS DRIVEN TO AN OPEN ABANDONMENT 
OF THE REFORMERS IN DEFENSE OF THE PURITAN SCHISM. 

Having found the Reformers with the Church on the points of 
Baptismal Regeneration and the Real Presence, those who 
attempted to defend the Puritan schism had no alternative left, 
but to desert the men and disparage the views which were so 
clearly against them. This was the course accordingly taken. 

I know not how my opponent could well have done otherwise 
without abandoning his cause entirely ; and yet, I doubted wheth- 



thereto persuaded, confess Christ's natural body to be in the Sacrament 
indeed by spirit and grace, because that ivhosoever receiveth worthily that 
bread and wine, receiveth effectuously Christ's body aud drinketh bis 
blood." — Wordsworth'' s Biography, vol. iii. p. 237. 

"I say therefore that in the mystery of the Supper, by the signs of bread 
and wine, Christ is truly delivered to us, yea and his body and blood." — 
Calvin's Institutes, B. iv. c. 17, § 11.— See the whole of the 5, 8, 10, and 
11 sections of this chapter. 
*Chap. 29. Sec. 7. 



27 

er he could bring himself to cast such dishonor on the venerated 
authors of Protestantism. But he did so in the most direct and 
explicit manner. He did not so much as attempt to retain the 
support of any one of them, but Calvin — if we except the una- 
vailing citation of what was shown to be false testimony, in favor 
of the assertion that Cranmer renounced the doctrine of the Real 
Presence.* Somewhat of a desperate effort, however, such as 
a drowning man puts forth to grasp the last plank that is near, was 
made by him to keep the Genevan Reformer on his side. There 
stood the rest of that band of worthies, rejected — Luther frowning, 
Cranmer thoughtful, and Melancthon with pity in his eye — while 
even Calvin seemed to feel himself insulted by this treatment of 
his compeers. Sternly did he refuse to leave their company. 
Being fairly consulted, he was found to speak so plainly to the 
point of Baptismal Regeneration as well as the Real Presence, 
that it appeared perfectly idle for the modem Congregationalist 
to attempt to retain him on his side. For no Reformer asserts our 
participation of Christ Himself in the Lord's Supper more strong- 
ly than Calvin ; and, too plainly to be misunderstood, does he 
teach that spiritual Regeneration takes place in Baptism. If he 
ever wavers on this point, it is only when it clashes with his theory 
of individual election. As strongly as Cranmer or Luther, did 
he hold that all for toTiom Christ died are spiritually regenerated 
in their Baptism — unless personal disqualification bar the grace 
of GoDf . 

Finding it thus impossible to make any thing out of the Reform- 
ers for his cause, my opponent gave them up ; and, deserting these 
witnesses for the truth, fled, openly, to the Unitarian ground. 



*Compare Cranmer on the Doctrine oflhe Sacraments, with LeBas' 
Life of Cranmer p. 201. 

flnstitutesB.iv. Chap. 15. § 1— Id.Chap. 16. §§4, 7,9,17,21. 



as 

He attempted to defend himself* as this Iscariot sect are wont to 
do, with the plea that the Reformers, though very good and use- 
ful men, were yet persons who had their eyes but half open to the 
errors of Romanism, or to the truth of Christ — that the Reforma- 
tion itself needs to be reformed — and that we, of the nineteenth 
century, are the men to teach the world what that truth is which 
Luther, and Cramner, and Calvin, did not get a glimpse of, or 
did but faintly see ! Acting on this hypothesis, my opponent now- 
proposed to go to the naked Scriptures, to show that they do not 
agree with the Reformers, insinuating, in passing, that I had not 
dared to approach this fountaion of truth. As though we had 
not reason to suppose, that men who have been accustomed to talk 
as much as Congregationalists have about the glorious Reforma- 
tion, would admit without question that the doctrines of that Ref- 
ormation are the doctrines of Scripture. 

THE HOLY SCRIPTURES FURNISH NO EXCUSE FOR THE PURITAN 
SCHISM. 

The Scriptures were now appealed to, both against the Refor- 
mers and the Church ; and I must say that rarely, if ever, have I 
witnessed an attempt at exposition less worthy of a theologian. 
There was neither comparison of Scripture with Scripture, nor 
aught else which betokened investigation of the subject, or anv 
proper acquaintance with it. I should have been disposed to 
attribute this to haste, had there not been such a method in the 
superficial course pursued as showed a determination to go no 
more than skin-deep into the matter. 

My opponent began, by saying, that the texts that he should 
quote would speak for themselves — that he did not conceive it to 
be necessary to spend much time in comment, and that he should 
pass hastily over his proofs. Iu this he was as good as bis word. 



29 

He did little else but string texts together, the dependence for 
effect seeming to be rather upon the jingle of the words, as the 
passages were enunciated, than upon any reasonable sense derived 
from authority, or educed by application of the rules of exegesis. 
So far as there was any attempt at comment, the sole object 
seemed to be to disparage those doctrines of the Reformation, 
which assert the importance of recognizing the connection of the 
inward and spiritual grace with the outward and visible form. 

Feeble, and undeserving of a serious reply, as was this ap- 
peal to Scripture, I yet determined to follow my opponent to that 
ground, and from those Holy Oracles, also, to expose his error; lest 
his insinuation should lead some to suppose that we dare not follow 
him to the Sacred Record. It had indeed been thought and 
believed that we should both be willing to bide the test and decis- 
ion of the standards of the Reformation ; it was certainly sup. 
posed by me that, when we should ascertain what the Reform- 
ers held, we should be agreed in regarding the same as the doc- 
trines of Scripture. But when I found that my opponent would 
not stand by this decision, because, forsooth, it was against him >" 
when I found him willing to abandon those holy men and the 
great standards of those times, because they condemn his new 
theology ; when I found him ready to appeal to Holy Scripture 
against them, I was willing to go to those Scriptures, to show 
that, as judged by that standard, correctly interpreted, the 
Reformers are right, and these modern rationalists wrong in their 
exposition of the "Word of God. 

To make it manifest that the Reformers were Scriptural in the 
views they held in regard to the Sacraments, it was first demon- 
strated that the same views were entertained and advocated gen- 
erally by the early Fathers, both with respect to Baptism* and 

*Justin Martyr, first Apology — Td. Dialogue with Trypho. lrenseuse 
Lib. ii, c. 39. Clement of Alexandria, Pred. B. I.e. 12. Tertullian D. 
Baptismo c. 5, 12, 13. Cyprian, Ep. Fidus. 



30 

the Eucharist* It was then argued, unanswerably, as it may 
always be, that doctrines, which were so prevalent from the very 
first, could have had no other origin than that inspired exposi- 
tion of the Apostles which, without question, expressed the mind 
of the Spirit. And from these premises it was concluded that, as 
the earliest witnesses for the truth are found advancing the tenets 
of Baptismal Regeneration and the Real Presence in the Lord's 
Supper, it cannot be otherwise than that the Reformers, concur- 
ring as they did in this primitive teaching, were on these points 
altogether Scriptural. 

In further support of the position, that the authors of our re- 
formed standai - ds were right and sound in their views with 
respect to the particulars in question, it was urged that the passa- 
ges of Holy Writf on which they based their theory of the Sac- 
raments, are not tortured to make them subserve this end, but 
taken according to the natural signification of the words — that the 
general tenor of the Holy Scriptures is in harmony with this 
interpretation — that there is not a passage which so much as inti- 
mates it to be the duty of pai-ents or Ministers to labor for the 
regeneration of the children of the faithful, such being in Christ, 
and so in a state of salvation, by virtue of the initiatory Sacra- 
ment — that it is matter of undoubted history that for fifteen hun- 
dred years from the establishment of Christianity the doctrines of 
the Real Presence and of Baptismal Regeneration were ac- 
knoAvledged wherever the Christian faith was held — that the lat- 
ter was never doubted or questioned until Calvinism, with sit 
dogma of unconditional individual election, made the Christian 



*Ignatius Ep. ad Smyrn.c. 7— Id. Ep. ad Ephes. c. 20. Justin Mar- 
tyr, Apol. i. c. 66. Irenseus Adv. Hasr. B. iv. 18, 5; B. v. 2, 8. 

fin reference to Baptismal Regeneration. — John iii : 3, 5, Gal. iii: 27. 
Tilusiii : 5.— In reference to the Eucharist— Mali, xxvi: 26,28. Cor. xx : 16- 



31 

Minister stagger in faith and falter in speech — that, until this error 
came in, the initiatory Sacrament was every where, from the very 
first, looked upon, by such as were sound in the faith, not as a 
charm, not as a thing which could benefit after coming to years of 
understanding without repentance and faith, not as securing against 
a liability to sin, or as rendering conversion unnecessary when a 
state of iniquity should be fallen into, but as begetting the soul to 
a new life by uniting it in a, living union to the Saviour, and so 
putting it in a way to attain to eternal felicity — and, that the 
phrases, such as awakening &c, which are now used to indicate the 
process by which the erring are brought to conversion, agree bet- 
ter with our theory of regeneration, which supposes there is in the 
baptized, however wicked, a principle of spiritual life, torpid if 
not active, than with the new fashioned scheme* which looks upon 
the soul as dead until conversion takes place. Triumphantly 
was it asked, what upon this latter theory, has become of the 
whole Church of God of sixteen centuries — centuries in which all 
Christian men trusted for salvation, through Christ, to regenera- 
tion in Baptism, so far, at least, as concerns the beginning of 
spiritual life in the soul 1 And here it was submitted, wheth- 
er, in view of all this — in view of the facts that the Church of 
England in holding the doctrines of Baptismal Regeneration 
and the Real Presence did but adhere to what all the Refor- 
mers believed, the Fathers taught, the primitive Church confessed, 
and the Holy Scriptures inculcate — we do not see that the Puri- 
tans had, on this ground, no excuse for separating from the 
Church, and for committing the fearful sin of rending Christ's 
dear Body. In justice to the Pilgrims it was stated and proved 



"Trumbull's History of Connecticut vol. ii. p. 155, 165. 



32 

that they themselves never objected to these doctrines* — that the 
plea of opposition to these tenets is one which they never put in — 
that their descendants have got it up simply in order to help them 
out in the defence of their progenitors. So much for my oponent's 
far-fetched argument based upon the alleged Romanism and offen- 
siveness of the doctrines of Baptismal Regeneration and the Real 
Presence. 

EPISCOPACY NO EXCUSE FOR THE SCHISM. 

But there is another doctrinal ground on which my opponent 
attempted to extenuate the sin of the Puritans ; and this was, 
the alledged error in the Church of England of originating the 
doctrine that there are, by Divine appointment, three orders of 
Ministers in the Clrarch, the first and highest of which alone has 
the power to ordain. 

My opponent asserted that Bishop Bancroft Avas the first man 
who taught this doctrine in the Church of England — that, before 
his announcement of it, the Episcopacy had been regarded as only 
a matter of convenience — that this teaching of Bancroft, which was 
followed by others till it became very general, bore hard upon 
some who had not recieved Episcopal ordination, and offended 
others who had — that it was looked upon as oppression and a 
just cause of complaint — and that on this account the Puritans 
were warranted in separating from the Church of England. 
Partly in their defense, and partly as it seemed, to indulge a 
disposition to fling at the Church, the gentleman, at different 
times, and in different ways, undertook to show, that the doctrine 



*" There was hardly a Puritan in England that refused subscription to 
the doctrinal articles." — NeaVs Hist, of the Puritans, London, 1793, vol. 
i. p. 236. 



S3 

of three orders in the Ministry cannot be maintained. His effort, 
in this direction, consisted chiefly in reading extracts which scout 
the idea of succession, from the works of such persons as "Whately 
and Isaac Taylor — writers of no authority whatever with Church- 
men. To this were added some feeble attempts in the way of 
starting objections, as, that the Apostles could have had no succes- 
sors because they were chosen witnesses of the Saviour's resurrec- 
tion — that Elders are sometimes in the Scriptures styled Bishops — 
that the section of country, over which those anciently called Bish- 
ops exercised jurisdiction, was far less in extent than modern 
Dioceses — and that those who presided over the Church of Rome 
are by one of the Fathers denominated Presbyters. 

Besides urging these and such like objections, the opposition 
made a very earnest effort to disparage the testimony of the 
Fathers, especially of Ignatius, whose shorter Epistles are allow- 
ed to be genuine by the highest sectarian authorities,* and against 
which the great Lardner says, no voice had ever been raised did 
they not testify so clearly in favor of Episcopacy. But here the 
course of my opponent was consistent with what it was elsewhere, 
the object seeming to be not so much to build up, as to tear 
down — not so much to defend Congregationalism, as to destroy 
Episcopacy. The only fair thing he did was to acknowledge that 
Episcopacy was general before the year 325. And in this his 
fairness was not excessive, inasmuch as the Congregational Cat- 
echismf admits that Prelacy was almost universally prevalent as 
early as A. D. 200 ; while Blondel, a noted non-Episcopal wri- 
ter, says it was established by the year 140. If we except an 
attempt to show that there is no such thing as conferring any pow- 

*Pearson's Vind. c. 5. Mosbeim's De Rebus Christian, p. 160. Lard- 
ner, vol. ii. p. 66, 68, 69. 
tp. 55, 60. 



34 

er by Ordination, no argument whatever was brought forward 
in support of parity in the Ministry. The position that Ordination 
is nothing — nothing, that is, as conveying power to minister in 
holy things, was assumed and feebly defended. The view main- 
tained was, that election by the people is what confers the right 
to act authoritatively in Christ's name — ordination amounting, 
as was contended, to nothing more than a decent method of in- 
ducting- the already empowered Minister into his place. 

In opposition to this new fashioned view, so different from 
that once entertained by Congregationalists, so different from that 
advocated, in this very place, but a few years since, by Mr. Hart 
in his tract on Presbyterian Ordination, it was contended by me, 
in support of the doctrine of three orders in the Ministry, that the 
only way to get right views on this subject is, to go back to the 
original commission, and, observe not only its tenor, and to whom 
it was delivered, but, also, how those first appointed acted 
under that commission. 

And here, at the outset, the assertion that Bishop Bancroft was 
the first person who held the Ministry to have been Divinely con- 
stituted in three orders, with the power of ordination vested ex- 
clusively in the first and 1 ighest of these, was disproved by 
showing that the Preface to the Ordinal, taken with the Collects 
in the Ordinal, which was framed nearly forty years before Ban- 
croft's Sermon, declares the very doctrine which he taught.* It 



*Bancroft's Sermon was delivered at St. Paul's Cross, January 1st 
1588. "The form and manner of making and consecrating Bishpos, 
Priests, and Deacons," was set forih as early as the j ear 1549; and in 
the Preface to these Offices, it is said, that "It is evident unto all men, 
diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient Authors, thai from the Apos- 
tles' time there have heen these orders of Ministers in Christ's Church, 
Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. And lest any might be left to suppose 
that this was a matter of human arrangement only, the Bishop is in- 



35 

was then premised that this view would be found to be sustained 
by a reference to Holy Scripture and ancient authors. To show 
that it is so sustained, the original Apostolic Commission was 
first produced as recorded by the Evangelist*, from which Scrip- 
ture it appears, that when Jesus had " breathed on" the eleven, 
saying "receive ye the Holy Ghost," and, "as my Father hath 
sent me, even so send I you," there was to be seen in those chosen 
ones the men in whom was vested the Christian Ministry in its 
completeness. 

The position was next taken that, to ascertain whether the 
Ministry was to be continued in its completeness in one order of 
men, or, whether a part of its authority was to be delegated to a 
second grade, and somewhat less to a third, while some powers, 
as of Ordination, not given to these last, should be retained in the 
hands of the first class, is a point which can be determined only, 
by reference to the action of the Apostles under their commission. 
At once, therefore, we proceeded to an examination of the course 
pursued by the twelve. It was found that the ground to be inves- 
tigated lies within a narrow compass, the recorded cases of ordi- 
nation numbering but three which can be taken as precedents, the 
-designation of Matthias occurring in too extraordinary a manner 
to furnish any guide for future action, and the setting apart of St. 
Paul being the direct act of God, as the Apostle himself assures 
us.t 



struoted (o say in the Collect appointed to be used at the ordination of a 
Deacon — "Almighty God, who by Thy Divine Providence hast ap- 
pointed divers orders of Ministers in Thy Church;" — and, asain, in 
the Collect at the ordination of a Priest, — "Almighty God, giver of all 
good things, who, by Thy Holy Spirit, hast appointed divers orders of 
Ministers in Thy Church." This latter 1'orm is also used at the conse- 
cration ol'a Bishop. 

fJohnxx:21, 22. tGal.i:l. 



36 

The first of the three cases, which is that of the ordination of 
the seven Deacons, was then taken up, and examined with a par- 
ticular reference to the new notion advanced by my opponent — 
the notion, that election by the people, is the thing which gives a 
man a right to act authoritatively in Christ's name. Here it was 
found, that the ordination of the Apostles was what gave this 
right — that, while it was said to the people " look ye out among 
you seven men of honest report," it was added, " whom we may 
appoint over this business."* 

The second case was then taken up, which is that recorded in 
the fourteenth Chapter of the Acts, where it is said of Paul and 
Barnabas, that they " ordained them elders in every Church." — 
Particular attention was paid to this instance, because of its being 
claimed, that the Greek word rendered "ordained" in this pas- 
sage, indicates, that the setting apart was by election. But it 
was shown from the best lexicographerst, that the word has no 
such necessary meaning, importing, as it often does, merely "to 
appoint," leaving the method undetermined — that whatever ac- 
tion it may denote, Paul and Barnabas are, by the grammatical 
construction, declared to be the persons who put it forth — and, 
that, even though a concurrence of the people in the act could be 
shown, it would yet remain, true that the ordination did not, and, 
as we say, could not take place without an Apostle having a 
hand in it. Thus was demolished the slender foundation on 
which the modern Congregational theory, of setting apart to the 
Ministry, is based; and by the same argument the doctrine of 
Episcopacy was fully maintained, for, as yet, no instance of 
appointment to the sacred office was found to have occurred, with- 
out the presence and action of an Apostle. 

*Actsvi; 3. 
fRobinwn p. 893. Also, Schrevilius. 



37 

Nor was any thing different from this found in the remaining 
case, which is that of the ordination of Timothy. Though he is 
in one place* reminded of the laying on of the hands of the Pres- 
bytery, yet in anothert he is exhorted to stir up the gift which 
was in him by the putting on of St. Paul's hands. So that, though 
it may be true, that, as now with us, there is the laying of the 
hands of Presbyters with those of the Bishop on one to be ad- 
mitted to the Priesthood, so others may have laid hands on Tim- 
othy with St. Paul, yet do we here learn that at his ordination an 
Apostle was present and acting. Prom all this it was seen, not 
only that the fancy, of empowering to act in Christ's name by 
election without ordination, has no warrant from Scripture, 
but also, that none but Apostles, or their successors, as distin- 
guished from Deacons and Elders, possess the power to or- 
dain. To this conclusion we felt ourselves forced in view of the 
two circumstances, that, in the recorded scriptural cases of ordi- 
nation to the Diaconate and Presbyterate, nothing is said of the 
power to ordain being conveyed, and that there is no instance in 
the Bible of Deacons or Presbyters attempting to ordain. And, 
here, I may say, in passing, that no reply was so much as attempt- 
ed to this chief point of my argument ; why, I know not. Perhaps 
it was not thought prudent to venture it. 

The question was next raised as to whether the Apostles did, 
in fact, appoint an order of men to be their successors, not to be 
like them in those extraordinary things which were peculiar to 
inspired ones, but in those ordinary functions which needed to be 
continued in the Church — particularly ordination and chief gov- 
ernment. It was assumed that they did appoint such an order of 
men, and Timothy and Titus were instanced as examples. The 



*ITim. iv: 14. fll Tim. i: 6. 



38 

Epistles of both were brought forward in support of this position, 
from the first of which it was shown, that Timothy, though young,* 
had, individually, the power to ordain, and to discipline the various 
Deacons and Elders who were under himi — of whom there 
were a considerable number, as was proved by reference to what 
is said of the Elders of Ephesus, in the twentieth Chapter of the 
Acts of the Apostles. Thus it was shown that the Apostles did 
in fact appoint an order of men to be their successors, as ordain- 
ers and chief governors in the Churches. 

Next it was shown that this order of things was designed to be 
continued. This was proved by a reference to the circumstance 
that forty years after this, at the time the seven Epistlesf were sent 
by the ascended Saviour, through St. John, to the seven Church- 
es of Asia, there was still at Ephesus, as well as in the six other 
places indicated, just such a successor of the Apostles as Timothy 
had been appointed to be in the first named city, and Titus in 
Crete. This, it was affirmed, we leam from these Epistles being 
severally addressed to "the Angel" of each Church, and, from this 
Angel or Bishop being regarded as responsible§ for the state of 
the Church over which he presided. This was in the year 96. — 
Passing along twenty years more, we found Ignatius, the Bishop 
of Antioch, on his way to Rome to suffer martyrdom, and, on his 
journey, writing a letter to this same Church of Ephesus, over 
which Timothy had presided, in which he speaks distinctly of 
their Bishop, and also of their Presbyters and Deacons||. This 
was in the year 116. 

Having shown the existence of Episcopacy to this time, we 

*I Tim iv : 12. fl Tim. v. 19, 20, 21, 22. 

JRev. Chap, i, ii, iii. 
§Rev. ii: 14,20. 
liApostolic Fathers, Ep. of Ignatius to Eph. p, 56 57, 58, 64. 



39 

had but to appeal to the works of Ireneus* to find testimony to 
its continuance to the year 202 — the period, it will be remember- 
ed, at which the Congregational Catechism admits that Episco- 
pacy was prevalent. The proof down to this point was shown 
to be perfect, the teacher of Ireneus, Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna, 
having been the disciple of St. John. 

In order to remove all doubt as to the primitive Bishops being 
more than mere pastors of single congregations, the city of Anti- 
och, the See of old Ignatius, was taken as an example, and shown 
to have contained in his time 200,000 souls,f of whom, according 
to Tertullian, the greater part were Christians. 

Who, now, it was asked, doubts, that from the Apostles times to 
the year 200, there had been three orders of Ministers in Christ's 
Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons — the first having the sole 
power to ordain ? 

Having thus put it beyond all reasonable question, that the 
Church was organized by the Apostles, under Christ, in the 
Episcopal form, and that a Succession of Ordainers was thus com- 
menced, we next proceeded to show that this succession has 
been preserved to the present time, and that our own Bishops 
are in it. 

In order to make this truth appear more plainly, it was first 
shown that the proof of this point is by no means so difficult as 
many may suppose, there being but one hundred and eighteen 
links in this chain of succession from St. John down to our first 
Bishop consecrated in England : — from St. John to Augustine, 
thirty-two ; from Augustine to Cranmer, sixty-six ; from Cran- 
mer to Bishop White twenty. There was then produced an argu- 
ment for the succession from a work entitled " Warning to the 



*Adv. Heres iii. 3. *See Slater's Original Draught, p. 73, 78, 



40 

Churches" by Dr. Lathrop, one of the most eminent of the Con- 
gregational divines of New England, who argues for the certainty 
of the continuance of the succession from the promise of God to 
be with His Church "always, even unto the end of the world;" 
urging that, unless this promise of God bas failed, the succession 
must have been preserved. Lathrop's idea was, that the suc- 
cession is in the line of Presbyters, but his argument applies as 
well to Bishops; and, having proved that the succession was ves- 
ted in them, we are, of course, at liberty to apply his reasoning, 
as we do, to that Order. 

It was next shown that, from the course pursued in consecra- 
ting to the Episcopate, a failure in the line of the succession be- 
comes next to impossible. The Apostolic Canons, which were 
in force from the second century, require that a Bishop be or- 
dained by two or three Bishops*. It was argued that, if it be con- 
sidered that each of the three ordainers, uniting in any given 
consecration, had his own three ordainers, and that each of these 
last may, as is often the case, have had wholly different consecra- 
tors, making in all nine sources of dependence residing in the three 
Bishops who take part in the supposed transaction, it maybe seen, 
in view of the additional fact that the action of one Bishop alone 
is enough to ensure validity, that the loss of the succession is 
nearly out of the question. For, even eight of the nine rights 
which exist in the three consecrators might fail to be good, and 
yet the ordination be valid. The great security which hereby 
arises for the preservation of the succession was urged at 
length. Besides this, there was presented the actual listt of the 
succession from St. John to our first Bishop consecrated in Eng- 
land. In answer to the insinuations which had been made with 



*See Coaon 1st. fChapin's Premitive Church, p. 275. 



II 

respect to the integiity of this list, it was contended that the pre- 
sumption is in favor of the record, and that the course pursued 
of making indefinite objections is wholly unfair. A pledge was 
given, that whenever one of these links of our succession should 
be faulted, for what could be claimed to be, even in appearance, 
good and sufficient reasons, we would be ready to prove the objec- 
tion groundless. Nay more, we were ready to affirm, and to 
challenge the contrary to be shown, that the evidence we have, 
in favor of the Apostolic succession, is greater than what any one 
can show for the transfer of the Sabbath from the seventh to the 
first day, or for the practice of infant Baptism ; and as great as 
we have for the canon of Holy Scripture itself. This being so, 
it was urged that he who rejects the doctrine of the Apostolic 
succession should, to be consistent, throw away his Bible too — that 
the testimony on which he receives both being the same, he should 
fear to reject one as much as the other. And here it was sub- 
mitted whether immense mischief is not done by non-Episcopal- 
ians in their efforts to disparage the authorities on which the can- 
on of Scripture, and the Apostolic succession mutually rest for 
support — whether in attempting to destroy their testimony in 
favor of Episcopacy, they do not lend themselves to the work of 
undermining the foundations of our common Christianity. 

Having thus vindicated the doctrine of three orders in the Min- 
istry by showing that, according to Goo's arrangement, none but 
the Bishops, as successors of the Apostles, have the power to 
ordain, and that only those who have received the imposition of 
their hands have any right or power, whatever to act authoritative- 
ly in the Saviour's name, it was asked, With what reason can any 
one undertake to justify the Puritan schism on the ground of 
objection to this- Scriptural doctrine 1 Modern Congregational- 
ists make the attempt in vain. The jfirst Puritans themselves 
never thought of putting in such a plea* Never, I repeat, did 



42 

thosernen so "much as pretend to excuse their separation from the 
Church of England on the ground of her alledged unsoundness 
in matters of faith. Even Daniel Neal* says explicitly, that the 
secession was not on account of doctrine ; and, had he said diff- 
erently, that noted letter,t written by Wintlirop and his party, 
on board the Arabella, in which the Church of England is spoken 
of as "our dear mother," and in which most reverent mention is 
made of the Bishops of the same, would have testified, that the 
Pilgrims had no fault to find with her pure faith. 

It may be very convenient, for the sake of effect, to take the 
ground, as my opponent did, that the whole Puritan difficulty grew 
out of the imperfect reformation of the Church of England — that 
its religion as settled by Elizabeth, and as it remains to the pres- 
ent, is no better than a mixed sort of faith, being, as is represent- 
ed, but a compound of Christianity and Popery. Facts, we see, 
disprove this position. Facts show that the Church of England 
is no more Romish than the other reformed Communions. Ro- 
mish indeed ! For what, then, did Cranmcr, and Latimer, and 
Ridley suffer ] Went they to death, only to perpetuate Popery 1 
Away with such nonsense ! 

THE CEREMONIES OF THE CHURCH NO EXCUSE FOR THE PURITAN 
SCHISM. 

To defend the position that the Puritans were persecuted ', as sta- 
ted by Goodrich and Olney, and that they had ground for separa- 
ting from the Church, it was now contended that her ceremonies, 
if not her doctrines, were liable to objection. She retained many 
of the features of Romanism — the same Prayers, Clerical Habits, 

*Hi*tory of the Puritans, vol. 1. p. 236. 
fHutchinson'3 Massachusetts, voir 1st, Appondix, No. l« 



43 

the Sign of the Cross in Baptism, Kneeling at the Communion, 
the Ring in Marriage, Bowing at the name of Jesus, and the ob- 
servance of Saints' Days. These, it was plea J, ara things to 
which some men were conscientiously opposed. But lest this 
might appear a very poor reason for making a schism, and rend- 
ing the Church of God, my opponent found it necessary, as others 
have done, to bring in some additional idea, which might serve to 
clothe the objection with some show of importance ; and so he 
told us, with- a very serious face, that the Puritans really sup- 
posed that Churchmen regarded these usages as possessed of 
some supernatural power like charms, and that the retention of 
them was instrumental in perpetuating the evils of Popery. By 
way of giving an example of this, it was stated that the validity of 
a ministerial act was supposed to depend on the Clergyman hav- 
ing on his robes ! 

It was answered, that, whatever the Puritans might have believ- 
ed on the subject, Churchmen did not regard these ceremonies as 
having the power of charms. Such a supposition is a pure fig- 
ment. It may be doubted whether even the Romanists them- 
selves carried their ideas to the length represented by the gentle- 
man — the fact of their accounting Baptism by midwives valid ef- 
fectually contradicting the alledged fancy, that the efficacy of min- 
isterial acts depends upon the priestly garment. More effectually 
to expose the unsoundness of the plea founded on ceremonies of 
the Church of England, they were taken up, one by one, and 
examined. 

In regard to the allegation that some of the same Prayers were 
retained in the English ritual which had been used in the Romish 
offices, it was answered, that it ought to be remembered that the 
Romish was once a pure Church — that not all the prayers she 
now uses have been composed since she became corrupt — the* 



M 

Borne of them are older than the errors of Rome, as the one of 
St. Chrysostom, following the General Thanksgiving, in our daily 
Morning and Evening Service — that, these prayers being no more 
defiled by Romish use than the Holy Scriptures are, there is no 
reason why, finding them good, we should not retain them. 

In regard to the objection to Clerical Garments, it was an- 
swered, not only that the one which was specially obnoxious — the 
Surplice — was in use long before any errors of the Papacy had an 
existence,* but also that the Puritans showed gross inconsistency 
in being willing to wear the black gown — a garment of acknowl- 
edged Romish origin — while they objected to the white habit, 
which is of certain primitive use. 

In respect to the Sign of the Cross, it was answered that, when 
we find so famous a Puritan as Thomas Hooker, of Hartford, 
writing an essay in defence of its use on the King's banner, and 
when we see this emblem placed by the descendants of these 
cross-hating Puiitans on the top of a meeting-house steeple in this 
very County of Litchfield,t it may well be questioned whether the 
objection of which we are speaking — arose from any thing better 
than a disposition to find fault with the Church of England. 
Small reason, indeed, is there to believe that it proceeded from any 
thing like principle. Not without cause was the query lately put 
to me by a correspondent, Did you ever hear of a Puritan ob- 
jecting to the King's money because of its having on it the sign of 
the cross? 

To the objection to Kneeling at the Communion on account of 
its alledged tendency to perpetuate the error of Transubstantia- 
tion, it was answered, that the Church of England, like her 



*See p. 16, also Apostolic Constitutions, B. viii. 12. 
fNorfoik. 



m 

daughter in this country, teaches in one of her Articles* a doc- 
trine which cannot fail to correct any erroneous impressions 
that the requirement to kneel might otherwise create, and, 
that the result shows that, whatever fears may have been enter- 
tained on this point, they were unfounded ; there being no people 
more free from superstition in regard to the Lord's Supper than 
those of the English and American Churches. While they be- 
lieve Christ to be really present in that Sacrament, they yet un- 
derstand the nature of that Presence too well to suppose that He 
is there under any form which can, as such, be properly wor- 
shipped. 

My answer in reference to the use of the Ring in Marriage, I pass 
by, for the reason that the objection to this harmless and appro- 
priate ceremony is so palpably unreasonable, that it may safely 
be left to refute itself. Only I will remark, in passing, that this 
is but one example of the spirit of Puritanism — a spirit which 
destroyed in men all regard for what is refined and beautiful, and 
which led them, with Vandal rage,t to "break down all the carved 
work with axes and hammers." 

In regard to Bowing at the name of Jesus, I had only to an- 
swer, that to object to it, savors so strongly of a disposition to rob 
the Redeemer of His due, it is no wonder that, when the Puritan 
Parliament proposed to pass an act forbidding the custom, that 
.rue nobleman, Sir Edward Dering, himself a Puritan, should 
have been moved to say, addressing the Speaker on the floor of 
the House, — " Take Jieed, Sir; and let us all take heed whither 
we are going! if Christ be Jesus, if Jesus be God, all reve- 
rence, exterior as well as interior, is too little for Him * * * * * 
Sir, I shall never obey your order so long as I have a head to lift 

*28!h. fSee Hume vol, % p, 464, 



46 

up to Heaven, so long as I have an eye to lift up to Heaven ; for 
these are corporal bowings, and my Saviour shall have them at 
His name Jesus*." 

The objection to the last of these faulted ceremonies — the ob- 
servance of Saints' Days — was answered by saying, that, if it is 
ever pi'oper and useful to call to mind the examples of the great 
and good, then must it be reasonable and beneficial to have set be- 
fore our minds those who were honored as the chosen followers 
of the Lord, and to whose sufferings we are so much indebted for 
the faith which we now possess; and it might, with fitness and 
pertinency, have been added, that those who now show them- 
selves so fond of man-worship, in glorifying the Pilgrim Fathers, 
ai - e the last of all mortal men who should be found perpetuating 
the old and foolish objections of the early Puritans against the 
observance of the days set apart by the Church to the memory of 
the Saints of the Bible. 

Thus were these objections disposed of, and thus was it shown 
that no sufficient ground of complaint was to be found in the 
ceremonial of the Church of England, to warrant so serious an 
act as rending the Body of Christ. Only one other excuse for it 
was plead; and it need not take long to state what that was, and 
how it was met. 

NO CORRUPTIONS IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND SUFFICIENT TO WAR- 
RANT THE PURITAN SCHISM. 

The last plea put in by my opponent in defense of the schism 
of the fathers of Congregationalism, and in defense of the asser- 
tion that they were persecuted was, that there were great corrup- 

*Southey's Book of the Church, chap. xvii. 



47 

tions in the Church of England — corruptions which, it was al- 
ledged, result both from her connection with the State, and from 
the working of her own ecclesiastical system. A great deal of 
time was spent in trying to make it appear that in this particular 
she was, and is, surpassed only by the very Mother of Abomina- 
tions herself; and it was directly asserted that the Church in this 
country partakes but too much of the character of that of Eng- 
land, especially in being defective, as was charged, in the matter 
of discipline. 

To this last assertion it was answered that one reason why it 
may appear to others that we have no very stringent discipline, 
is, because, in our way of exercising it, we do not make so much 
bustle and noise as they do — that with us, and so in the Church 
of England, the Minister has the power to cut off from Church 
privileges — and that it is no evidence that discipline is not as of- 
ten used in the Church as elsewhere, because her Minister in dis- 
charging this duty does not cause so much commotion as is occa- 
sioned by the assembling of a whole Congregational Church, as it 
is called, for this purpose. And, in conclusion, the conviction was 
expressed that, considering the various ends to be gained by dis- 
cipline, it is better and more effectually administered in the 
Church, than any where else. 

"With regard to the corruptions of the Clergy of the Church of 
England, so much dwelt upon by my opponent, it was shown 
that the period to which his proofs applied was immediately after 
the Restoration, when, it is confessed, the whole nation was suf- 
fering in its morals in consequence of the whining hypocrisy 
which the twelve years Puritan dynasty, then just ended, had so 
widely engendered. Lest 1 should be thought over severe in this 
statement, his favorite author, Macaulay, was allowed to give his 



48 

testimony on the subject — a testimony that more than corroborates 
all that I found it necessary to affirm*. 

No attempt was made to defend the acknowledged evils which 
spring from the connection of the English Church with the State ; 
but it was contended that these evils can never be justly plead as 
an excuse for the Puritan apostacy, when no Christians in the 
world had, at that time, the least idea of a Church existing in 
any way but in connection with the State ; when the Puritans 
themselves had no intention to frame their ecclesiastical system 
on any other model ; and, when, as we know, they came here and 
established a Church and State system which had more than all the 
evils of that under which it is pretended they were persecuted, 
and from which they fled. 

But while no effort was made to extenuate the evils which arise 
from the connection of the Church of England with the State, 
there was yet an attempt to do justice to that Church in two 
ways; first, by showing that her tything system is not oppressive 
in its operation, requiring, as it does, nothing more than the pay- 
ment of what belongs to her, in virtue of a lien on the annual in- 



*Speaking of the Puritan dynasty, he says "another government arose 
which, like the former, considered religion as its surest basis, and the reli- 
gious discipline of the people its first duly. Sanguinary laws were enact- 
ed against libertinism ; profane pictures were burned; drapery was put 
on indecorous statues ; the theatres were shut up; fust days were 
numerous ; and the Parliament resolved, that no person should 
be admitted to any public employment, unless the House should be sat- 
isfied of his vital godliness. We know what was the end of this train- 
ing. We know that it ended in impiety, in filthy and herrtless sensuality ; 
in the dissolution of all lies of honor and morality. We know that, at 
this very day, scriptural phrases, scriptural names, perhaps some scriptu- 
ral doctrines, excite disgust and ridicule, solely because they are associa- 
ted with the austerity of that perixl. The training of the High Church 
ended in the reign of the Puritans, and ihe training of ihe Puritans in the 
reign of the harlots." — Macaulay's Miscellanies, vol. 1. p. 312, 3J.3. 



m 

crease of certain lands secured, to the Church by voluntary gift of 
the ancient proprietors of the soil in the age of the Barons, these 
lands being always sold and let at a discount by reason of this en- 
cumbrance.* In the second place, justice was attempted to be 
done to that much slandered Church by showing what a glorious 
work she is doing for Christ, spite of the disadvantages under 
which she labors. It was shown from documents! which are not 
to be questioned, that the Church of England, with the Church in 
America, is doing more to-day, giving more money and furnish- 
ing more men, for the cause of Christian missions, than all the 
rest of the Protestant world put together. And, further to vin- 
dicate this noble Church from the wrongful charges which have 
been brought against her, there was presented an extended list of 
testimonies in her favor, and of eulogies in her praise, from the 
pens of the most eminent Presbyterian and Methodist, and even 
Congregational divines! No unprejudiced person could have 
listened to those statements, and testimonies, without feeling 
that the Church of England is a Church to which any Christian 
man might esteem it an honor to belong, and in which he might 
feel it his happiness to live and to die. Thus was set aside the 
only remaining plea which was urged in justification of the sepa- 
ration of the Puritans from the Church of England, and thus was 
shown how utterly groundless are the statements of their histo- 
rians. 



*See New York Review, vol. 1. p. 255—292. 
f Chapin's New Englandism not ihe Religion of the Bible, p .59. 
JCbapin's State of Religion in England, and Germany compared, p. 
12—18. 



50 



REAL CAUSE OF THE PURITAN SCHISM. 

From the beginning to the end of this discussion a constant 
struggle was made to maintain the position that the Puritans were 
a quiet, meek, godly sort of men, who possessed about all the 
piety there was then in the world — that all they wanted was to be 
allowed to enjoy their views in peace — that they were not per- 
mitted to do this — that they were so harrassed by Elizabeth and 
her Bishops, out of sheer cruelty and hatred of vital godliness, 
that they were at last obliged to flee their native country — and, 
that thus, they were led to betake themselves to this western 
wilderness, for no other purpose but to have the liberty of wor- 
shipping God according to the dictates of their conscience. 

That the Puritans suffered was admitted before my opponent at- 
tempted to prove it ; and he might have spared himself the labor 
expended night after night in heaping together testimony on this 
point. But that their sufferings were visited on them simply be- 
ause they wished to have liberty to enjoy their religious opinions 
unmolested, and to worship God quietly in their own way, was 
denied. On the contrary it was asserted, that a reference to the 
facts in the case will prove that they did not suffer from this cause 
at all, and, so, that their sufferings were not persecution. 

A very common error — an error which most of the Histories 
used in our Schools are calculated to propagate — was first correc- 
ted. It was shown that the Puritans were not, as is very generally 
supposed, a denomination of Christians, distinct from the Church 
of England. So far from that, they were members of that 
Church, and nothing was more remote from their wishes than to 
be considered in any other light. A separation from an establish- 
ed Church was in their time generally regarded as so great an 



51 

evil and disgrace, that, had liberty heen offered them to set up for 
themselves, the proposal would have been rejected with scorn and 
indignation.* The Puritans wished neither for a Church discon- 
nected from the State, nor yet for a free toleration. This was 
fully proved by establishing the facts, that they kept their own 
civil and ecclesiastical affairs united while they had the ascenden- 
cy, both in England and in this country — that such was their dis- 
position to continue this state of things, that the power to do so 
had here fairly to be wrenched from their handst — and that for a 
long period after the settlement of the Pilgrims in New England, 
they granted to others no separate religious privileges whatever.^ 
The received notion was that to allow men to worship God in 
different ways, as they might choose, was to ruin religion. The 
Puritans, therefore, in their opposition to the Church, had not 
for their object its independence of the State, nor any such thing 
as free toleration in religion. Why, then, did they contend? For 
what, then, did they seek 1 

Our answer was, they aimed, as a factious party in the Church, 
to get the ascendency, and, without leaving her Communion, to 
subject the whole body to their control. What they desired to 
have, was, supreme dominion in the Church of England*. For 
this they struggled — for this they rebelled — for this they, in cold 
blood, murdered their venerable Primate and their pious King ! 

In proceeding to the proof of this, a distinction was drawn be- 
tween the first generation of Non-Conformists, and the later Pu- 
ritans. It was conceded, that, of the exiles driven into banish- 



♦Humevo'l. 2. p. 195. 

fSee Connecticut Legislative Proceedings for 1848, and those of Massa- 
chusetts for 1834. 

^Gordon's American Revolution, p. 29. Hutchinson's Massachusetts, 
vol. 2. p. 29. Chapin's Puritanism not genuine Protestantism, p, 119. 



meat in the reign of the bloody Mary, a number who became 
tinctured with continental notions in opposition to certain forms 
and ceremonies of the Church, behaved themselves quietly after 
their return, asking for nothing but to be excused from a few re- 
quirements. This class was made up of such men as good old 
Fox, the Martyrologist, and Miles Coverdale, so well known as a 
translator of the Bible — men who were willing to live in, and to die 
for the Church of England, who labored for her prosperity as 
long as they were spared, and blest her with their latest breath. 
Subsequently, however, as was shown, there arose a race other- 
wise minded, a generation of what Neal gently calls, "men of 
warmer spirits" — that headed and led on by their champion, 
Thomas Cartwright, they assumed a bolder tone than had char- 
acterized their predecessors — that now humble request, and re- 
spectful expostulation was exchanged for arbitrary demand, and 
daring threats — and that it was not only asked that certain cere- 
monies be dispensed with, but required that the whole frame- 
work of the Church be altered, that a Presbytery be substituted 
in place of the Episcopacy, and everything, in the services and 
oflices, be remodeled.* Nor only so, they insisted upon having 
the civil Constitution and common law of the land changed, in 
such a manner that the State should be made subservient to the 
Church,! and that Ministers of the Gospel should be framers of 
the laws, and the civil magistrate only judge of the facts.§ In a 
word, they demanded that, miscalled, " HolyDiscipline" which was 
afterwards set up in the time of the Commonwealth, accompany- 
ing their requirement with a threat that if their wishes were not 



*See the First Admonition. 

jHallam's Cons. Hist. p. 126. 

§J. B. bii. de Polit- Civil, et. Ecclesiastic, p. 123, 129, 130. 



53 

complied with, " they would infallibly be their -own carvers" in the 
work* Here we behold the meek, peaceable, non-resisting char- 
acter of the Puritans ! 

At the same time that Cartwright and the other great leaders 
of the faction were holding language like this in their communi- 
cations to Parliament, others of the party, it was also shown, 
were flooding the land with publications of the most hrflamatory 
and seditious character, proposing to overthrow all existing insti- 
tutions, even the Government itself, if it did not bend to their 
will.t Until this insurrectionary conduct of the 'Puritans render- 
ed necessary the interposition of Government, no severity was exer- 
cised towards them. In proof of this fact was adduced, first, the 



*See the Second Admonition. Also Maddox's Vind. p. 180 — 256. 

fSee, in', Strype's Life of Whitgift, App. p. 138, and Strype's An- 
nals, Vol. 4. p. 148, a couple of briefs drawn up by men of those times* 
and in which the tendency of Puritan principles is set forth. A few ex- 
tracts are subjoined. 

"They abrogate or change the greater part of the laws of the land." 

" By teaching that ministers should be judges juris, what is law in all 
matters, and civil magistrates judges only of the fact." 

"They say it shall prevail; malgre the Queen, Council, and all that 
stand against it." 

" They animate one another thus; buckle with the Bishop. Massacre 
these malkin Ministers ; let us take our pennyworths of them, and not die 
in their debt." 

" One of them (Snape) asked this question. What will you say, if we 
overthrow the Bishops, and that Government, all in one day." 

" They write that if it come in by such means as will make your hearts 
ache, you must blame yourselves. And that it is more than time to 
register the names of the fittest and hottest brethren, round about their 
several dwellings, whereby to put Suecanus"s godly counsel in execu- 
tion, viz. If the prince will not, then to erect it themselves. In which point, 
saith he, we have dolefully failed, which now or never standeth us in 
hand to prosecute with all celerity, without lingering and slaying so long 
for Parliaments" 



54 

testimony of the distinguished historian, Strype,* who declares 
in the fullest and most explicit manner that for several of the ear- 
ly years of Elizabeth, great tenderness was shown to the Non- 
conformists ; secondly, the date (1562) of the seditious Admoni- 
tions of the Puritans sent into Parliament, and of several of their 
other inflamatory publications ; thirdly, the dates of the severe 
acts of Elizabeth,t none of which were earlier than the 22d 
year of her reign ; and fourthly, the Letter J of her Secretary 



*Life of Parker, p. 183, "Elizabeth and her Commissioners did 
dispense or wink at many divines who could not comply, and yet had and 
retained still, dignities in the Church." 

Again : p. 243 — "As for the peaceable Non-Conformists, and particu- 
larly Sampson, Coverdale, Fox, and Humphrey, Lever, Wyburn, John- 
son, and Perry, they were dealt gently with, and had if not licence, yet 
connivance to preach in public and hold preferments." This was A. D. 
1567, the 9th of Elizabeth. 

Again, in 1572 — the 14th of Eliz. — Strype says in his life of Whitgift, 
"They (the Non-Conformists) were as gently intreated as might be; no 
kind, brotherly persuasion omitted towards them. Most of them as yet. 
kept their livings. 

See, also Maddox, p. 172—177. 

■J-Aet for restraining the Press, 1580, 22d Eliz. 

Act for restraining the Queen's subjects in due obedience, 1580, 22d Eliz. 

Establishment of the Court of High Commission, and requirement of 
the ex officio oath, 1583, 25th Eliz. 

Anti-Conventicle act, 1583, 25th Eliz. 

Act for preventing and avoiding such inconveniences and perils as might 
happen and grow by the wicked and dangerous practices of seditious Sec- 
tarians and disloyal persons, 1593, 35th Eliz. 

Jin this Letter, which is to be found in Burnet's History of the Re- 
formation, London 1825, Vol. 6, p. 532, among other pertinent things, 
Walsingham says, "For the other party, which * * * we commonly call 
Puritans, this hath been the proceeding towards them ; a great while, 
when they inveighed against such abuses in the Church as pluralities, 
non-residence, and the like, their zeai was not condemned, only their vio- 
lence was sometimes censured. But now of late years, when there issu- 
ed from them that affirmed the consent of the magistrate was not lobe attend- 



55 

of State, whom Bnrnet calls "one of the wisest and most virtu- 
ous ministers these latter ages have produced" — a Letter which 
goes to show, as the previous testimonies do when taken togeth- 
er, that what the Puritans suffered, they suffered as troublesome 
citizens and rebellious subjects. 

The London "Christian Observer," a work of acknowledged 
moderate tone, and of undisputed authority, says, Vol. 14. p. 470, 
"The Puritans had their establishment to seek, and they were 
determined to move Heaven and Earth to obtain it. They wrote 
— they preached — they prayed — they went from house to house, 
and were conversant with all ranks from the highest to the low- 
est. As it was necessary, they supplicated, admonished, inveigh- 
ed, and finally, rebelled, and all to carry their own plans, and to 
impose upon others their own views." And again, p. 398, 
"There is no historical truth, we believe, more clear, no fact more 
incontrovertible than that the real design of the Puritans was not 
the general grant of religious liberty, but the establishment of 
their own platform." The "British Critic," another work of 
high authority, says, Vol. 13th, p. 33. "However transcendant may 
have been the merits of the Puritans as individual members of so- 



ed ; when, under pretence of a confession, to avoid slanders and imputa- 
tions, they combined themselves by classes and subscriptions; when they 
descended into that vile and base means of defacing the Goverement of 
the Church by ridiculous pasquils; * * when they began to make many 
subjects in doubt to take oaths, which is one of the fundamental parts of 
justice in this land, and in all places; when they began both to vaunt of 
their strength, and number of their partizans and followers, and to use com- 
binations that their cause would prevail through uproar and violence, then 
it appeared to be no more zeal, no more conscience, but mere faction and 
division; and therefore, though the state were compelled to hold somewhat 
a harder hand to restrain them than before, yet was it with as great 
moderation as the peace or state of the Church would permit." 



56 

ciety, their conduct as a party was captious, and turbulent be- 
yond all endurance ; and it must have required more than saint- 
like patience on the part of the Government to look with compo- 
sure on their manifold acts of sedition." Again, p. 30; "Their 
system like that of revolutionary France at the end of the last 
century, was prepared to take the form of an armed doctrine. 
The Constitutional Historian himself, (Hallam) distinctly admits 
that Cartwright and his adherents assumed the tone not of sup- 
plicants for freedom of conscience but of desperate rebels against 
established authority." And Tyson, a Quaker, one of the pre- 
sent Vice Presidents of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 
in a discourse before that body, in 1842, says, (p. 14.) "the Puri- 
tans strenuously inculcated the dogma, that theirs was the only 
true Church, and as such was alone entitled to toleration. These 
sentiments were followed by acts which in their tendency, and 
expressed design, were to precipitate a religious and political revo- 
lution." 

Their sufferings arising from this cause, it was claimed, could 
not, by any proper use of language, be called persecution. It 
would be as correct, we maintained, to give the name of murder 
to the execution of a criminal, put to death by the laws of his 
country. Who, it was asked, would think of styling the pro- 
ceedings against Guy Fawkes, and the others engaged in the 
gunpowder plot, persecution ; and yet, it was added, those pro- 
ceedings might be so called with as much reason as to give this 
name to the sufferings of the Puritans. Conscience and religion 
could be plead in the one case as fairly as in the other, the only 
difference being that, in the first the object in view was the pro- 
motion of Romanism instead of Puritanism. And certainly the 
measures taken to secure the triumph of Popery were no more 
destructive and iniquitous, than those which were adopted for 



m 

bringing in what may, with propriety, be called the Unholy Dis- 
cipline. It was contended that to the sufferings of neither of 
these Papistical or Puritanic malcontents can the phrase perse- 
cution be, with any fitness, applied. To make this more appa- 
rent, our argument was applied, by way of illustration, to the 
Abolitionists of our own country. It was asked, if they, under 
cover of the plea of conscience, should propose to overturn the 
Government, and proceed to such lengths as should render it 
necessary for the civil arm to be put forth against them, whether 
the sufferings thus brought on themselves could justly be called 
persecution. "With as little reason, it was maintained, can the 
sufferings of the Puritans be so styled. He who would see per- 
secution was bid to look at the poor Quakers of New England, 
as they hung upon the gallows. There was suffering for con- 
science sake, simply for claiming the right to worship God as they 
pleased. Such was not the case with the Puritans. The Gov- 
ernment, in proceeding against them, acted simply in self-defense ; 
and, therefore, what they suffered, they suffered as political offen- 
ders. The acts framed against them were severe, viewed in the 
light in which we now regard punishment, but they were shown 
to be mild for those times, much milder than the laws enacted 
by the Puritans in the time of the Commonwealth,* or by the 
same as colonists in this country .t 

It having thus been made to appear that what the Puritans 
suffered at home, were evils which they drew down on them 
selves by their own wrong doing, it was shown, that what they 
endured in going to Holland, and in coming to this countiy is to 



•See Southey's Book of the Church, Vol. ii. p. 390—395, 445. 

f Chandler on Persecution, p. 402, Also, Huch. Mass. and Story's 



Miscellanies. 



58 

be attributed to the same cause, inasmuch as the tempest from 
which they fled was this one of their own ci'eating. Failing to 
succeed in their iniquitous aims, and feeling the pressure of those 
severe acts of Elizabeth, which their temerity had provoked, they 
were, of course, glad to escape. This, and the feeling by which 
they seem to have been inspired, that it is better to reign in Hell 
than to serve in Heaven, together with the hope, that their pock- 
ets might not in the long run suffer by the operation, led them to 
betake themselves to this western wilderness, to which they came, 
as men who had been disappointed at home, seeking their for- 
tune. That the chief thing which brought them here was a desire 
to enjoy and to spread religion, was shown to be contradicted by 
the reasons assigned by their Secretary, Morton, for their remo- 
val to this country,* and by the testimony of their own historians, 
who assert that they lived here eight years in the neglect of that 
plain command of the Saviour, "Do this in remembrance of 
me" — and that they suffered twenty six years to pass before en- 
gaging in the Missionary work at all, when, according to their 
own theory of minister-making, it was in their power, at any time, 
to have attended to both of these duties.t 

The intention was here expressed of giving to these men even- 
handed justice. It was stated that we have no objection to their 
being lauded by those who may choose to gloi-ify them — except 
when it is done at the expence of disparaging other as good, or 
better men. That many of them were persons of great individu- 
al worth was admitted — the concession being intended, however, 
to apply not so much to the men who landed on Plymouth Rock, 
as to those who founded the Massachusetts Colony. But while 



*See Davis' Morton p. 19. 
fHutch. vol. i. p. 150. Neal'8 New England, vol. i. p. 128,242. 



59 

this was granted, it was at the same time denied that we are 
indebted to the Pilgrims for originating the idea of civil liberty , 
as centennial addresses, and Fourth of July speeches, and Pilgrim- 
meeting songs usually assert. On the contrary it was shown that 
the true notion on this point was apprehended and acted upon 
long before the Pilgrims ever thought of America — that the prin- 
ciple had been developing for ages and that the Charters granted 
to the Puritans by the mother country embodied it, to a degree to 
which the Puritans themselves had not yet attained, as is shown 
by their restricting, as they did, the privileges which those Char- 
ters conferred.* Nor, were we ready to admit that to them or 
to their sons, are we wholly or even chiefly iudebted for our na- 
tional freedom. From the Chronicler, Young, it was shown that 
the instrument drawn up on board the May-flower, which has 
been claimed to contain the substance of our Declaration of Inde- 
pendence, was designed and fitted for no other purpose but mere- 
ly to keep in due subjection certain rude and lawless men of the 
so called godly Pilgrim band. And in answer to the insinuations 
which were made respecting the patriotism of Churchmen, and 
to the impudent assertions which arrogated to the Puritans all the 
credit of gaining our liberties, it was asked, what were the Hen- 
rys — the Lees — the Laurens — the Rutledges — and the Pinckneys 
of South Carolina, and Virginia, but Churchmen 1 Nay, what 
else was the great Washington himself ? 

Having thus shown what was the real cause of the Puritan 
schism, and of the Pilgrims coming to this country ; and having 
proved that we are not so much indebted to them for the blessing 



^Hutchinson's Mass. vol, l,p. 31. 



60 

of civil liberty as it is very fashionable to represent,* it was pro- 
posed to consider next what have been the actual results of the fa- 
mous and much-lauded Puritan movement. 

RESULTS OF THE PURITAN SCHISM. 

The object for which an investigation was instituted on this 
point was to ascertain whether the consequences of this schism 
are such that it can, in reason, be expected that, for the sake of 
sustaining the ecclesiastical system which is the offspring of it, we 
should be willing to allow the teaching of those false representa- 
tions in regard to its origin, which are injurious to the Church. 
What, then, it was enquired, have been the results of the Puritan 
movement] 

The following were noticed, as legitimate, palpable fruits, and 
as being a natural and fitting growth from this root of bitterness : 
— the destruction of Christian unity ; impairing Christian chari- 
ty ; bringing the cause of Protestantism into disrepute ; creating 
an obstacle to the success of Christian missions ; increasing the 
expenses of supporting the Gospel, and so diminishing what should 
go to help in sending the bread of life to the destitute — evils which 
the invention of that rope of sand "the London Christian Alli- 
ance," and all other alliances of human formation will in vain 
attempt to mend ; evils that nothing can remedy but a return to the 
unity which was by the Puritans broken. 

And here the question was raised, whether the Congregational 
gy&tem, which resulted from this Puritan movement, has answered, 



*A pleasing exception is found in the recent Address delivered before 
the New York St. Nicholas Society, by C. F. Hoffman Esq., in which 
production he, as a scholar and a literary man, claims all and more lhan all 
than is contended for by ns on this point. 



61 

to any good purpose, the ends of a Church of Christ, and whether 
there is evidence of its having been blessed of God. This inquiry, it 
was maintained, it is easy to answer, since Congregationalism dates 
back, at the longest, only to the year 1582, and the facts are all 
of recent occurrence which pertain to this schism from the 
Church of God. 

In order to give greater distinctness to this question and to the 
answer, it was premised that there are two principle things inten- 
ded to be secured through the Church, by its Divine Head ; first, 
the presei'vation of the faith, and secondly, its effective promulga - 
tion. To this test it was proposed to subject the Congregational 
system. And to the question whether or not Congregational- 
ism, as a system, has answered the first of these ends, it was re- 
plied, that it has not. To prove the correctness of this answer, 
appeal was made to the fact acknowledged by my opponent, that 
the doctrines of the Reformation are no longer held — that Con- 
gregationahsts no more teach or believe what Luther, and Cran- 
mer, and Calvin maintained, in regard to the character of the 
benefits secured by the atonement ; in regard to the nature of 
man's union with God's Christ ; and in regard to the means by 
which that union is formed and maintained. This mournful truth, 
so fully attested both by proof* and confession, was affirmed to be 
convincing evidence that Congregationalism has not answered the 
end of a Church of Christ in the particular — the important par- 
ticular of preserving the faith. 

In further proof of this point, the circumstance was pointed 
to, as a significant fact, that there has been an abandonment by 
Congregationalists of the standard which their fathers formerly 
held in Connecticut; a discontinuance, also, of the study of the 



*Cong. Cat. p. 58, 66—68. 



62 

old Catechism, which was once so generally used in the Schools 
and homes of New England — and a great and marked change, 
even within the last thirty years, in the doctrines inculcated from 
their pulpits. While the Saybrook Platform is still published as 
a book to be read, it was shown, as well by the confession of Dr. 
Bacon, as by the acknowledgement of my opponent, that it was 
no longer regarded as being of any "binding authority."* This, 
it was urged, shows, that the doctrines once held by the Congre- 
gationalists of this country are no longer believed. To make this 
important truth more deeply felt, by bringing it home, it was in- 
timated that if any one will take the trouble to compare the wri- 
tings of such men as Dr. Lathrop, or even Mr. Hart, on the sub- 
ject of the Ministry and of Ordination, with those put forth by my 
opponent in his ordination sermon at Northfield and in this dis- 
cussion, he will be convinced, that there is in Congregationalism 
a constantly downward movement. i 

Lest such things as Ordination, and the Ministry should be 
thought of too little importance to make a change in them any 
evidence of a serious departure from the former faith, the con- 
vincing and astounding fact was proved, that the man who is at 
the head of the New Haven Theological School — the School at 
which the larger part of the Congregational Ministers of Con- 
necticut are trained — has so far departed from the doctrine 
originally held by by Congregationalists in regard to man's fallen 
state, as to declare in his published writings, over and over again, 
that we have, in and of ourselves, without the grace of God, the 
strength and perfect ability to do our whole duty.t In view of 
this, the opinion was expressed, that there is no reason to doubt, 

*Bacon's Manual, p. 108. 
fSee Quarterly Christian Spectator, vol. iv. p. 172, 174, 234, 339, 240; 
vol. vii. p. 301. 321. 



63 

that the larger part of the Congregational Ministers, educated 
at that heretical School, hold with its head in this error. 

To put this point, of Congregationalism having failed to keep 
the faith, beyond all question, Massachusetts was pointed to with 
its seventy Unitarian meeting-houses, once Congregational; and 
with its Puritan -founded Harvard, now in the hands of deniers of 
the Lord who bought us. And going further, it was asked, 
Whence came the Universalism ; the Perfectionism; the Miller- 
ism ; the Mormonism, and the Infidelity with which New England 
is cursed? Most of it may, we affirmed, be traced to Congrega- 
tionalism. An examination, it was said, would convince any one 
that she is the prolific mother who has brought forth this hopeful 
progeny, not directly, indeed, but by degrees, some being children, 
some grand-children, and some great grand-children. The 
preaching of old fashioned Election, and new fashioned Revival- 
ism, is what, it was maintained, has produced them. A some- 
what desperate attempt was made to rid Congregationalism of the 
charge of producing Unitarianism, by insisting that the congre- 
gation of King's Chapel, Boston, was the first to go over to this 
heresy. But when it came to be shown under what circumstan- 
ces this occurred* — that it was at the close of the Revolution, 
when the Parish had no Minister, and when many of the regular 
owners of the pews of that Church were out of the country — 
that it was not till those pews had been wickedly sold to Unitari- 
ans by those who had no right to dispose of them, and not till the 
lay reader and his hearers had avowed themselves Congregation- 
alists that they declared for Unitarianism, the affair appeared in 
quite a new light. "When thus, it was shown that this Parish had 

*See Hist, of King's Chapel, p. 139. 



64 

first to turn Congregationalists before they could become Unita- 
rians • and when it was asked, why cannot another instance be 
named, in all America, of a Church Parish going over to Unita- 
rianism ; it seemed to be conceded, that it was vain to think of 
putting the blame of this apostacy on Episcopacy. Clearly was 
it shown that this, and the other "isms" with which New England 
abounds, have grown out of Congregationalism. To make it, if 
possible, more apparent that this Puritan contrivance is not 
capable of answering the ends of a Church of God, in the way 
of keeping the faith, there was here brought forward, on secta- 
rian authority * the astounding fact, developed at the late meet- 
ing of the London Christian Alliance, that the great body of the 
European Protestants, who are non-Episcopal, have become Uni- 
versalists. And the question was here asked, Is this a conse- 
quence of giving up the Episcopacy 1 By removing this one 
stone from the arch of truth, is the whole fabric about to tumble ? 

Having thus proved that Congregationalism, as a system, is 
incompetent to the preservation of the faith, it was next shown 
that neither does it answer the purpose of being an effectual pro. 
mulgator of the Gospel — that where it has had full sway, un- 
checked and unmodified by aught else, and has enjoyed full op- 
portunity to work out its legitimate results, it has signally failed 
to retain an influence over the minds of men, sufficient to jring 
them into the way of life, and to train them for Heaven. The 
section of this State lying east of Connecticut river, was pointed 
to as an example. And, it was further declared to be a fact, which 
examination will establish, that, as a general thing, the condition 
of morals, as well as of religion, is much better in the towns of 

*New York Evangelist, Dec. 17th, 1846. 



65 

our own County where the Church has been planted, than where 
the Congregational meeting-house is alone to be found. And, to 
show that these are not peculiar results arising from local causes, 
but that they grow out of the system of Sectarianism, the fact, 
recently published in the NewYork Observer, was instanced, that 
the English religious paper which is the principal organ* of the, 
miscalled, Evangelical denominations, has lately been engaged in 
warmly defending the running of Rail Road cars on Sunday, 
while a leading Church paper has been opposing it. 

The truth, then, in regard to the results of the Puritan move- 
ment, seems to be, that after the removal of the party to this 
country, it continued for a time to feel and to be actuated to some 
extent by the right principles and influences in connection with 
which it had originated in the Church of England ; much as a 
wheel will continue its revolutions for some time after the motive 
power is taken off. But when this impetus was lost there began 
a retrograde movement, a deteriorating process, which has con- 
tinued till there is a serious departuref, if not an utter falling 
away from the principles and faith of the Reformation, and of the 
Holy Scriptures — till the doctrine of man's fallen state is in sub- 
stance denied, the need of man's incorporation into Christ not 
taught, the Sacraments held to be possessed of only a moral in- 
fluence, and so to be but dead formsj, the idea of a Ministry, 
authorized to act authoritatively in Christ's name, is scouted, the 
belief that any power is conveyed in Ordination ridiculed, stand- 
ards and Creeds are thrown to the winds, and much else, which 
was once by their forefathers counted precious and sacred, is 
trodden under foot as as unholy things till, in brief, Congregation- 
alism has become a compound of Pelagianism and Unitarianism ! 



*Tlie Loudon Palriut. fSchaf on the Protestant Principle, p.12 — 
118. Nevins' Mystical Presence, p. 126. 

^Congregational Catechism p. 165. Bacon's Manual p. 56, 66, 66. 



66 

As we look upon it, thus shornof its former power by a denial of 
its former faith, its influence over the mind of the community 
gone, its systems of revivals — the forlorn hope — well nigh worn 
out, it seems, we affirmed, to be no better than an excressence 
upon the Body of Christ — growing out of it, but adding nothing 
either its beauty or its strength — in itself a poor spiritless form, 
bearing upon its front the signs of premature decay, in utter 
helplessness submitting to be preyed upon by the very vermin 
which it has brought forth. In other words, it appears, we de- 
clared, as an institution which has Ichabod written upon its walls 
— walls from within which the glory had departed, in fulfilment of 
that memorable saying of the Saviour, "Every plant which My 
Heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up." 

This was said of the Congregational system, not of the indi- 
viduals who stand connected with it. Many of them, it was admit- 
ted, are ornaments to Christianity. But yet, they are not regard- 
ed as indebted to their system for their excellences of character, 
but as possessing them in spite of their system. Purity often ex- 
ists in connection with error. 

CONCLUSION. 

Having fully exrjosed the rottenness of the ecclesiastical sys- 
tem which resulted from the Puritan movement, it was now de- 
monstrated that, by being obliged to have our children listen to 
the teaching of such statements as the Histories of Goodrich and 
Olney make respecting the origin of that movement, we are, in 
fact, forced to contribute to the support of the once Standing Ol- 
der of Connecticut. It is well known that if these stories are not 
believed, Congregationalism is down. It lives only by fostering 
predjudice. Perhaps it may be asked, What matters it, if the 



Church be injured and depressed by having childrens' minds terri- 
fied with the bugbear, and impressed with the belief, that Bishops 
have loved to persecute the Saints of the Most High; are not the 
interests of the once Standing Order, of sufficient consequence 
to warrant the Protestant Jesuitism of doing this evil that good 
may come to Congregationalism? 

That harm is done to the Church by the teaching of these 
falsehoods, there can be no manner of question. The obvious 
effect is, to imbue the mind of one generation after another with 
the idea, that the Episcopacy has been, causelessly and wickedly 
the persecutor of God's people on a large scale. Even the child- 
ren of our own Communion have been so far led to believe what is 
contained in this wrong instruction, as to be made to suppose 
that the best they could do for the vindication of the Church on 
this point was, to excuse and extenuate the alledged persecution 
as well as they might. Such is the injurious effect of this teach- 
ing upon the Church. And, that hereby Congregationalism is 
benefited, there can be but one opinion. Not without reason 
did my ooponent admit, he had no doubt that this teaching stands 
in the way of Episcopacy. He might have added with equal 
truth, that by consequence, it must operate in favor of his own 
denomination. Said the little son of a Church- Warden, but a 
short time since, "Mother, when 1 am grown to be a man, I am 
going to meeting." "Why, my boy?" "Because, my School 
History tells me that Bishops pesecuted the poor Pilgrims, 
simply because they wished for liberty to worship God quietly in 
their own way!" See, now, how this black falsehood operates 
to hinder the growth of the Church, and to promote the prosperi- 
ty of its foe. 

We have no objection that Congregationalism should live, if it 
can maintain itself by fair play in an open field. But, when it 



08 

comes to us a feeble minority, and demands that, for its good, we 
pay our money to assist in teaching statements which we know, 
and have proved, to be false — statements which blacken the char- 
acter of some of the purest and best men that ever lived, and 
which injure the interest of the Chutch of the Redeemer, we say, 
no. This is asking too much. There is a point beyond which 
flesh and blood cannot endure. And the preservation of the 
miserable skeleton of the Standing Order is not worth the sa- 
crifice. 

Besides, it was argued on our side, that, to apply to this sec- 
tarian purpose the proceeds of the School Fund — a fund design- 
ed to be not only for the general good, bnt, also, as the Constitu- 
tion of the State expressly says, for the " equal benefit of all" — is 
a gross perversion of its intended use. And, yet this wrong 
thing, of which we have both reason and right to complain, is 
constantly done. Those who once lorded it over others with so 
high a hand, find it hard to cease to do as they were wont. 
Wherever they have the power to control the management of 
our Common Schools, and to order the inculcation of what will 
serve to perpetuate prejudices which operate to the advantage of 
Congregationalism, it is exercised without any regard for the 
opinions and feelings and interests of others, and in violation of 
justice and right. 

Not yet are equal rights secured in this State to different de- 
nominations. The change of the Constitution in 1818 did some- 
thing towards setting this matter right. It did so much that all 
are not now born Congregationalists, and men may pay where 
they will for the support of the Gospel, withont first doing reve- 
rence to Congregationalism. So much was gained. But the old 
ecclessastical system had existed so long, and had possessed such 
an advantage in beginning with the infancy of the country, and in 
uaving opportunity to mould every thing to its will, that it was 



69 

not easy to rid ourselves, at once, of the influence which had ex- 
tended itself over every usage of society, and institution of gov- 
ernment. By this influence, thus insinuating itself into every- 
thing, the whole system of popular education came to favor Puri- 
tanism. Puritans wrote the School Books, and wrote them in a 
way to humor their own prejudices on religious points, as well as 
to promote the interests of their sect. From the same motives 
these mis-statements have been copied by the sons of the Puri- 
tans, who have succeeded their fathers as school book makers. 
But they, as well as Boards of Visitors who recommend such 
Books, will have to learn that to impose such teaching on their 
fellow citizens who do not hold with them, is to be guilty of that 
very intolerance of which their fathers complained — that whei*e, 
as in this School Society, two-fifths of the children are of the 
Church, such a course is too unjust to be borne in sileface. This 
being so plain, and our right so obvious, I, for one, rest perfectly 
satisfied that the time cannot be distant when our wrongs will, in 
one way or another, be redressed. To the friends of the Church 
and of equal rights, I have, therefore, but to say, in closing — be 
patient and persevere. 



After the passage of the vote which inflicted upon us the injus- 
tice complained of in the foregoing pages, the following was pre- 
sented, and ordered to be entered on the minutes of the Board of 
Visitors. 

PROTEST. 

Inasmuch as the names of the undersigned will appear in 
the negative in the record of the vote now taken, we feel in duty 
bound to present the following reasons for our own action in this 
case, and likewise for the protest which we enter against the 
course that has been pursued by the majority of this Board, and 
desire that they maybe entered on the records of this Board. 



70 

Our reasons for opposing the resolution are, that we believe 
the passages of History, which by this vote are forced upon this 
School Society, convey false impressions ; that they operate di- 
rectly against the interests of a respectable minority of this co s 
munity ; and that the teaching of them is thus at variance with 
the principle of the School Fund established by the Constitution 
of the State, which declares that it shall be used for the "equal 
benefit of all." We therefore respectfully but earnestly protest 
against the course pursued by the majority in refusing to leave this 
matter where by mutual concession and friendly compromise it had 
been placed, and in forcing this obnoxious teaching upon all the 
Children of the School Society, when two fifths of the parents are 
conscientiously opposed to its inculcation. 

Apollos Markam. 

Wm. Watson. 

E. Johnson. 

S. T. Salisbury. 



Note. — It is proper to say, that the foregoing Review ii made 
up from full and accurate notes taken at the time of the discussion. 



APPENDIX, 

In the preceding Review there could be brought to notice only- 
such passages as were faulted in the two school histories of Good- 
rich and Olney. That the reader may see how general is the 
same misrepresentation in our school books, a few examples are 
subjoined. These extracts which were all made in a few minutes, 
and which might be infinitely extended, are taken from works, 
that according to the Report of the Superintendant, for 1846, are 
in use in the Common Schools of Connecticut. 

QUESTIONS AND SUPPLEMENT TO GOODRICH'S HISTORY OF THE 
UNITED STATES, BY JOSEPH EMERSON. 

" How had they, (the Puritans) been treated, during that period 1 ? 
They had been greviously 2>erscctited. By what denomination 1 
By the Episcopalians. Who had taken the lead in these persecu- 
tions 1 Elizabeth, Parker, Whitgift, James I., and Bancroft 
What was the office of Parker, Whitgift, and Bancroft ] Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury. For what did they recieve these injuries ? 
For preaching and hearing the Gospel, and worshipping God 
according to the dictates ef conscience. Wlio was the Archbishop 
of Canterbury 1 Whitgift. Who soon succeeded Whitgift in that 
office 1 Bancroft. Character of Bancroft ? He was a more 
dreadful persecutor than Whitgift. For what was he a proper 
tool 1 To execute the tyrranny of James." Chap, xviii. p. 24, 25, 
Boston, 1830. 

smith's geography. 

"A little band of English Puritans seeing no end to the perse- 
sutions they suffered at home on account of their religion, forsook 
their country, and sought an asylum in the wilds of America." 
New York 1847, R. 107. 

angel's select reader. 

" Sir, our ancestors migrated hither to build a country * * * * 
independence was their first aspiration ; independence of that 
country which had driven them into exile." p. 471. 

frost's united states. 
" The Puritans were still the objects of persecution in Eng- 
land." p. 57. 



72 



PARLEY S FIRST BOOK OF HISTORY. 

" They (the Puritans) were cruelly treated." 

pierpont's national reader. 

" They (the Pui'itans) seemed born and brought up for the high 
and special purpose of showing to the world, that the civil and 
religious rights of man, the rights of self-government, of con- 
science and independent thought, are not merely things to be 
talked of and woven into theories, but to be adopted with the 
whole strength and ardor of the mind." "Our fathers were En- 
glishmen, aggrieved, persecuted and banished. * * the best fruits 
and choicest action of the commendable qualities of the national 
character are to be found on the side of the oppressed few. 
* * the noblest traits of national character * * are commonly to 
be sought in the ranks of a protesting minority, or of a dissenting 
sect." "From the dark" portals of the star chamber, and in the 
stern text of the acts of uniformity, the Pilgrims recieved a com- 
mission more efficient than any that ever bore the royal seal." 
•' They made it a grave, solemn self-denying expedition," " no 
well-endowed clergy were on the alert to quit their cathedrals, 
and set up a pompous hierarchy in the frozen wilderness." 
" Victims of persecution ! how wide an empire acknowledges the 
sway of your principles ! Apostles of liberty ! What millions 
attest the authenticity of your mission ! Meek champions of 
truth ! no stain of private interest, or of innocent blood is on the 
spotless garments of your renown!" p. 202 — 205, 217. 

It will be seen from an inspection of the above extracts, that 
they are one-sided — that they are all in favor of Puritanism, ex- 
clusively — and that they are thus calculated to recommend and 
advance Congregationalism to the injury of the Church. So 
far as the writer knows no other denomination of Christians have 
attempted to promote their interests in this way, nor do they de- 
sire to do so. All they ask is that Congregationalists should cease 
to usurp such exclusive privileges. The Baptists and Methodists, 
be it said to their honor, have never used the School Fund to 
propagate their peculiar sentiments, and are suffering, in com- 
mon with Churchmen, from the tyranny of the prevailing sect 



<c o c: 

J. se 



c 

c: 


Cc 


cc 


Vr 


c< 


c 




CC 


C 


CH 


cc 


c 
c 

c 


c| 


cc 

CC 

cc 


c 


^C 


cc 


<c 


^CC 


CC 


c 


^j^ 


cc 


< 


^^ 


CC 


C 

c 

c 

o 

c 

[ « 
<: 


: i 

r: « 

r « 


: cc 

^CC 

E CC 


< 


t «cr cc 



c 


CO « 


C O CC 


c 

Cc 


c<Ci 


<fcS^ 




<3Cc 


f V c c 


■ <r~< 




C «r <cc 


Cc 


C<T 


OCT CO 


Cc 




<r c -cc 


Cc 


C^3l 


C C C 


<£± 


« OH3^ 


cc c 


«3C 

CC 




c <i_ <r *j 


<J*_C 


CO « 


cc 


<3CT 


c c c 


CC 


cc c 


CC 

cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 


W 


cc c 
cc cc 
cc cc? 

_ C'C <<L 


' l C8KI]I 


cc c<r 


$-■ 


<JK^T 


. CC CO_ 


*8£. 


CLC CO 


« 




C: cc: < 


cc 


^B| 


C cc < 


cc 


41 




cc 






<C 


^BB 


^HCCCCI 


<C 


Cc ^| 


fcLcc cc; 


«L 




■tZ_cc: cat 


GC 


< 


Br— cc cc 


^ 




^CC c 


<C 


CC 4 


«— ct<<L 



O 


c < 


c 


cc c 


a 




^i 


5 cV 


\ 


, CC 

< < c 


£ 


V c c - 


< 


= cc 


£ 


fcC 


« 


g: cc 














O- j j 




^-- , 


« ' 


O ! C 





c- or 


c c 


..cease 




a <ic 


c c 


GjS C 


«B 


Sfccsr 


C C 


CtCCC 


rr.. 


c CJC 


e c 


ore < 


^C 


§ ^cc 


< € -C 


<jCOC: i 


<5b 


Par«: 


c c 


C3Z<E « 




c C3T 


ccac 


crc<zc 


^ZT" 


e CTC 


C ■ c 


CQCC < 


ac 7 - 


c cC'T 


C2C 


^P5 


*-r. 


c ;r>- 


«sr 


crcrcr« 



~Vr ^^c C CC 



<«r^ rr "*r^ c cc 



■ oc ccc c 



J3&&L <ZC cc c 

7< C <LC CC CCC 

_.C. C;". «CTC CC CC' 

:c c <rc cc c«r«: 



3o ^ 







rr 


_ <dC_ 


r: 


en ; 




; Cf..> 


.<r ' 


cr 


; rr 


' CjL 


<r 


r -" <r 


-tr 


: i 


£ 


&£■ 


~sri 


'f-A 


r 




-: 


<- 5 









<accTc<c« 



% «ic. g 





ccc< 


'<iC 


.. 


cccc 


csjci 




<accr< 


.0^1 


. 


QCCC 


CMC, 




c«r<r5 




<sC; 


SRfc- 


ijSr 




»K 


(^ 



^J» 



c&c« 

3&G 



■•' •■ f&S W m SSIIk CC&15 1 < 






